Leveling is too powerful?

[Gospog]

Will there be any reward for good gaming, other than the story itself?

For example, you could give the players cookies, or Mountain Dew for defeating a particularly cunning foe.

 

[mmadsen]

If you make them classless, also, mmadsen might join your support!

Huh?

 

[Mark]

Huh?

I thought that was your gig, from reading various threads where I believe you were leaning in that direction. Not true? Rather than try to dig up examples, I'll just take your word for it if it isn't the case. My apologies if I have misspoke...

 

[mmadsen]

I thought that was your gig, from reading various threads where I believe you were leaning in that direction. Not true? Rather than try to dig up examples, I'll just take your word for it if it isn't the case. My apologies if I have misspoke...

No prob, Mark. I'm getting used to having all sorts of wacky ideas ascribed to me. I'm not against class-based or classless game systems, but I have argued for more flexible classes (a la the Fighter and Expert). Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

 

[Mark]

No prob, Mark. I'm getting used to having all sorts of wacky ideas ascribed to me. I'm not against class-based or classless game systems, but I have argued for more flexible classes (a la the Fighter and Expert). Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

You ask lots of questions to provoke discussion and I think a lot of folks assume (I guess I'm included here in this case) that you fall on one side or the other. More likely you are just hiolding up one side, as the discussion initiator, to keep it lively and fruitful. Nevertheless, always interesting reading, even when I don't directly contribute...

 

[mmadsen]

Seems to me that this game would be much more fun to play if we just stripped the capability of advancing any character from the system. That way, everyone is 0 level for the entire adventure. What do you guys think?

I'm not sure what provoked this tongue-in-cheek quasi-troll -- the recent threads on high-level gaming? -- but you actually bring up an interesting idea. The game, right now, is strongly tied to advancement, and that advancement is largely in terms of power a character wields directly (higher Hit Points, more Spells, etc.) or indirectly through magic loot.

There are lots of other options. For instance, you could start a game at, say, 7th level. The characters would start as heroes and remain heroes. Perhaps they'd never advance; perhaps they'd only advance after paying off their experience "debt"; perhaps they'd only advance after meditating in a mountain monastery, away from the demands of this material world -- while their allies need them to defend the realm.

Maybe advancement could depend even more on magic loot. Maybe advancement could depend on finding lost tomes of spells. If you're using Call of Cthulhu's magic system (or something similar), characters don't need more levels for more power. Maybe advancement could depend on building up social, economic, and political power, as in the real world. A powerful character is a king, and he wields great power in the form of well-armed soldiers, not a +5 sword.

 

[Jasperak]

I like the idea that someone had that I read earlier today. It was a way to slow advancement a little bit the higher the level the characters were. It went something like this:

Total XP earned / # of characters + average level

I have not tried it, but it seems okay. Leveling is fine in my book, powerful leveling is also okay, but leveling every two sessions or so, yech. I prefer to enjoy playing my character, not turning around every two/three weeks raising my char's level.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I think that leveling is done too quickly in this game as well. In early levels you gain a level every other session if there is even moderatly challenging combat. I am not sure at higher levels, but I would prefer slower progression. If progression moved so quickly for NPCs, all town guards and militia should be at least 5th level. Maybe that is the answer, make the world higher level.

I thought this was a troll, but I liked the direction it took. I have not read anything about issues with leveling recently.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm sure this is a troll following kreynolds posts in the high-level and sweet spot thread. Still, it's an interesting discussion! I can't wait until I see how Green Ronin does "no levels" d20 for their supers book. I would really like to see a viable option that wasn't just arbitrarily cutting levels down. I'd like advancement, just not levelling, and I don't really have a great idea on how to do it within the confines of d20.

 

[mmadsen]

I think that leveling is done too quickly in this game as well.

The obvious solution to too-quick leveling is to slow the leveling down, but there are other options. For instance, how big a power-leap is each level? As it stands, a level comprises many disparate improvements: another Hit Die, maybe +1 BAB, maybe +1 to a Save (or three), +1 to most Skills, maybe a Feat or Special Ability, more Spells (for spellcasters), etc.

Think of all the different ways we can scale those many facets of the power progression! Much of what a D&D level is is that extra Hit Die. What if a level meant +1 Hit Point instead of +1d6 Hit Points? Conversely, what if it meant a Feat (at every level)? What if BAB increased twice as fast as now? Or half as fast? Or if we added in a Defense bonus?

What aspects of the power progression get out of hand and change the flavor of the game too quickly? I think most people would agree that certain spells can change the game dramatically, and that the rapid Hit-Point progression early in the game changes things very quickly. Perhaps those are things you'd like to tone down -- without slowing down leveling at all.