Monte Cook and Levels

[GSHamster]

I remember a post from Monte Cook a while back, either on his site or on here, where he discussed why levels are good.

Anyone out there have a link to this article? I tried searching his site, but the word "levels" is surprisingly common.

 

[davidschwartznz]

I don't know about Monte, but I like levels becuase it means character abilities have mimumums and maximums. For example, BAB bonus can't be more than a character's level or less than half his level. No junior fighters who are expert killers, but can't do anything else, and no archmages who somehow managed to never learn how to use a weapon. Also, it makes it easier to find foes of relative equal power.

 

[Voadam]

For example, BAB bonus can't be more than a character's level or less than half his level .

Multiclass dipping into the 3/4 and 1/2 BAB classes can lead to less than half level BAB under Core RAW. A rogue 1/monk 1/bard 1/ sorcerer 1, for instance still has a +0 BAB at 4th.

And saves can get very wonky.

Unless you house rule to a variation of fractional saves with multiclassing.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Took a look. Can't find it right off the bat. It was on the old site, but Google has added a lot of pages so I can't find it easily. It's out there somewhere! Hopefully someone will have it handy.

 

[Hussar]

Multiclass dipping into the 3/4 and 1/2 BAB classes can lead to less than half level BAB under Core RAW. A rogue 1/monk 1/bard 1/ sorcerer 1, for instance still has a +0 BAB at 4th.

And saves can get very wonky.

Unless you house rule to a variation of fractional saves with multiclassing.

Perhaps he should have added the caveat that BAB doesn't do that unless people deliberately try to break the game.

 

[Monte At Home]

Don't remember where I wrote about it, but the concept is simple, and goes to the very heart of the game and player psychology. Levels serve not only a measure of power (which is very handy) but much more importantly they're a carrot on a stick to keep players playing. You can always look ahead and see what cool new power/spell/feat/skill/ability/hit point bonus/saving throw increase/etc. you're going to get, but you'll only get them if you keep playing the game. In other words, your character gets better as a reward for you playing the game and so you keep playing. It's the opposite of a game like Monopoly, where when you succeed in the game the game rewards you by letting you win (and thus ending the game, stopping you from continuing to play). It's so brilliant that virtually ever rpg (pen and paper or computer) uses something like it. It turns the game into a self-perpetuating meme, after a fashion.

This is true regardless of edition, which I'm sure was the context in which I said it originally. If memory serves, I wrote an article about the two most ingenius things of D&D being the two most maligned: classes and levels. If Gary hadn't put both of those things into OD&D, I don't think we'd all still be here chatting about rpgs.

 

[GSHamster]

Don't remember where I wrote about it, but the concept is simple, and goes to the very heart of the game and player psychology. Levels serve not only a measure of power (which is very handy) but much more importantly they're a carrot on a stick to keep players playing. You can always look ahead and see what cool new power/spell/feat/skill/ability/hit point bonus/saving throw increase/etc. you're going to get, but you'll only get them if you keep playing the game. In other words, your character gets better as a reward for you playing the game and so you keep playing. It's the opposite of a game like Monopoly, where when you succeed in the game the game rewards you by letting you win (and thus ending the game, stopping you from continuing to play). It's so brilliant that virtually ever rpg (pen and paper or computer) uses something like it. It turns the game into a self-perpetuating meme, after a fashion.

This is true regardless of edition, which I'm sure was the context in which I said it originally. If memory serves, I wrote an article about the two most ingenius things of D&D being the two most maligned: classes and levels. If Gary hadn't put both of those things into OD&D, I don't think we'd all still be here chatting about rpgs.

Hmm. Okay, thanks. I'm debating individual skill-based progression (a la Morrowind/Oblivion) vs. level-based progression with someone. I seemed to recall your article having some good points in favor of levels, which was why I was looking for it.