Making your own "Sweet Spot"

[kaomera]

An interesting thought I had:

Would you play in a game where you, as a player, got to decide when your character got to level up? (And what kinds of additional rules would you require to make this work?)

What I'm thinking of, more specifically, is that the players could choose to level up at the end of any "adventure" if they felt the time was right. I would go with that restriction only to save the sanity of the DM, assuming that most challenges would be scaled relative to the PCs current level, within certain limits. For example, a recurring villain could be described as "CR = average character level +2, maximum 7", so that up until fifth level she would be a decent challenge without removing entirely the possibility of the PCs just plain getting more powerful than her. Some groups might prefer to simply set CRs in stone (the typical {is it?} "NPCs don't gain levels" setup), and some might want to have the option of leveling during an adventure.

In any case I think it could be a fun option, but would shift a fair amount of specific responsibility for the overall "fun level" of the game onto the players' shoulders. There are players who aren't going to like that, and there are players who will simply level at every opportunity and then wonder why the game is speeding by so quickly (or not in the case of a DM willing and able to run the game through unlimited Epic levels and players who like that sort of thing).

 

[Crothian]

I would do it with one change. THe players as a group would decide when they all leveled up. That way I don't have one player that levels faster then the others.

 

[Aurora]

Interesting concept. I agree with Crothian. It would be too difficult to have characters at vastly different levels. At least, I think so.

 

[Jack Simth]

Of course, in doing that, you're dumping the XP mechanic.... and how do you deal with Crafters, or spells like Permanency, Limited Wish, Wish, et all?

 

[Sledge]

Very interesting idea. So would players need a vote to determine levelling? Would a majority suffice, or should it be unanimous? Perhaps give the dm a 1 session veto... So that if he doesn't want you getting X spell for an adventure then he can stall it a bit.

 

[Sadrik]

No veto.

But the DM should have a vote like all of the others.

 

[starwed]

how do you deal with Crafters, or spells like Permanency, Limited Wish, Wish, et all?

There are already XPless systems which deal with this. Typically, you have some sort of reserve to pay for crafting items, paying XP costs, and so on. You could also let people buy action points w/ this reserve, to throw nonspellcasters a bone.

 

[kaomera]

You could also let people buy action points w/ this reserve, to throw nonspellcasters a bone.

That's a cool idea, but how would you handle a spellcaster who makes magic items for other party members?

I also would shy away from having a veto; the whole point of the exercise (from my perspective) is to put that power in the hands of the players. Some might prefer to include some "checks and balances", but personally if the PCs are going to gain access to a new "k3wl pow4r" that will derail the next adventure, let it. It's cool, every once in a while, to just get to be too powerful for the bad guys to handle (especially since most players have to deal with the opposite end of that stick every once in a while too). Most players won't want to do that all the time (less challenge = less fun), and will probably slow things down on their own.

As far as only leveling the group as a whole, I'm personally used to the PCs being one or two levels apart. However, in this case I think keeping the group all the same level might be for the best (and I'm not sure how best to handle level loss...). If one (or more) characters are of a higher level than the rest I think there would be a strong urge for most players to level their own characters ASAP to catch up. The result would be that leveling becomes most strongly determined by the player(s) who want the fastest progression...

 

[Li Shenron]

Of course, in doing that, you're dumping the XP mechanic.... and how do you deal with Crafters, or spells like Permanency, Limited Wish, Wish, et all?

You could also just let them pay the full market gp price instead of 50% (or something in between, like 75%). That should compensate for not having to spend Xp.

 

[starwed]

That's a cool idea, but how would you handle a spellcaster who makes magic items for other party members?

That's always been an issue, though, even with XP costs.