What's your "Leveling Up" Sweet spot?

[Hussar]

There's a bit of a hint here that this idea that leveling up is important comes from new/younger gamers.

I don't agree with that at all. This was my experience all the way through. Three, four sessions per level has always been my experience in any edition.

No offense to those who play these really slow games, but, this is just not something I'm interested in. If I want to play games like that, I'd play GURPS or other level less systems. D&D has always been about the bump for me.

 

[ggroy]

No offense to those who play these really slow games, but, this is just not something I'm interested in. If I want to play games like that, I'd play GURPS or other level less systems.

For a level-less system, my preference would be Runequest or Basic Roleplaying.

 

[ggroy]

There's a bit of a hint here that this idea that leveling up is important comes from new/younger gamers.

I don't agree with that at all. This was my experience all the way through.

The players I knew of back in the day who were into fast leveling, were frequently also the same types who would be finding ways to score the highest number of points (in the shortest amount of time) in many arcade video games.

EDIT: This was back in the early 1980's.

 

[Hussar]

IIRC, Gygax's own expectations in the 1e DMG were about 1 year of game = 10 levels. Or something to that effect. So, it's not really something new.

 

[arscott]

I'll try to be diplomatic here...

If the expectations of the players are so tied up with levelling - as opposed to, say, an interesting and engaging story, some good edge-of-the-seat combats, occasional slapstick, heroic derring-do, exploration and discovery of a world they've never seen, and so forth - then there's a serious flaw in some aspect of how the game is being presented to said players in the first place.

I don't know if the flaw lies in the game's design or marketing, or if it's coming from what the new players are being taught by those already playing, or what. But if someone came to my table - and, I suspect, quite a few other tables - expecting and-or demanding constant reward in terms of level-ups there'd be a brief argument followed by a smackdown followed by an open seat in the game.

Lan-"yes, the tables go to level 20; that doesn't mean you're going to get there"-efan

See, here's the fundamental difference between your philosophy and mine: I don't consider levels to be a reward.

Levels are a gauge of character capability. I, as a GM, want the player characters to increase in capability--because it allows me to commensurately increase the challenges they face.

From a mechanical perspective, it preserves variety of play--when characters don't change, the tactical aspect of the game becomes stale and repetitive. When they level up, players gain access to new and interesting character options, while I get to use new and more powerful monsters against them.

From a character perspective, leveling allows mechanical changes that reflect character changes or character revelations. Is a character taking an active leadership role in the organization to which the party belongs? Well then he gains a few skill points in leadership. Did a character find out that her human existence is merely the larval stage of some higher being? Then here's a power to represent her otherworldly birthright.

And from a plot perspective, leveling allows me to raise the stakes. In the first session, the party is saving a farm. In the last session they're saving the world.* It's the natural progression of a story, and it's equally natural that character power grows along with the importance of their deeds.




*or destroying it. Whoops.

 

[Lanefan]

The players I knew of back in the day who were into fast leveling, were frequently also the same types who would be finding ways to score the highest number of points (in the shortest amount of time) in many arcade video games.

EDIT: This was back in the early 1980's.

Odd, in that I was that guy when it came to arcade games (back in the day when I still knew how to play them; video games of all kinds left me behind about 1986) but I still didn't care much about how often I bumped in the D+D game.

Lan-"a single quarter in an Asteroids machine could keep me quiet for hours"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

See, here's the fundamental difference between your philosophy and mine: I don't consider levels to be a reward.

Then I misinterpreted you earlier.

Levels are a gauge of character capability. I, as a GM, want the player characters to increase in capability--because it allows me to commensurately increase the challenges they face.

As do I, but I've also got loads of story and-or adventures that'll fit the level they're at if they don't move much. Then again, I'm storyboarding for a 5-10 year run.

From a mechanical perspective, it preserves variety of play--when characters don't change, the tactical aspect of the game becomes stale and repetitive.

Excellent point, which perhaps explains why 99% of the time I don't mind character turnover in the slightest. You're quite right in that the same characters doing the same things gets stale after a while, but if the make-up of the party is always somewhat in flux that problem mostly goes away.

When they level up, players gain access to new and interesting character options, while I get to use new and more powerful monsters against them.

From a character perspective, leveling allows mechanical changes that reflect character changes or character revelations. Is a character taking an active leadership role in the organization to which the party belongs? Well then he gains a few skill points in leadership. Did a character find out that her human existence is merely the larval stage of some higher being? Then here's a power to represent her otherworldly birthright.

I'll guess you're referring to a 3e or d20 game here, and those work differently. In 1e, once they've got even a couple of levels to 'em I can chuck a surprising variety of creatures and challenges their way without worrying too much about results.

And from a plot perspective, leveling allows me to raise the stakes. In the first session, the party is saving a farm. In the last session they're saving the world. It's the natural progression of a story, and it's equally natural that character power grows along with the importance of their deeds.

Depends how you set up the story, I suppose. It would also be quite possible to have it that in the first session they save the world (maybe they don't even know they saved it), and in the last session they finally get done putting it back together.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I never want them to get to high level. I just want them to take time doing it, and to be able to mine those lower levels for whatever stories they can give me. Then I can raise the stakes.

Lan-"assuming, of course, that the world is worth saving"-efan

 

[arscott]

Excellent point, which perhaps explains why 99% of the time I don't mind character turnover in the slightest. You're quite right in that the same characters doing the same things gets stale after a while, but if the make-up of the party is always somewhat in flux that problem mostly goes away.

But when the makeup of the party is in flux, that wrecks havoc with the plot. What's the use of spending 10 sessions establishing a PC's connection to an important NPC group if the PC then vanishes?

I'll guess you're referring to a 3e or d20 game here, and those work differently. In 1e, once they've got even a couple of levels to 'em I can chuck a surprising variety of creatures and challenges their way without worrying too much about results.

Fair. Part of the reason I like quick leveling is that I want to use monsters in the upper half of the monster manual. With the lousy monster capability of earlier editions, that's less of an issue.

Depends how you set up the story, I suppose. It would also be quite possible to have it that in the first session they save the world (maybe they don't even know they saved it), and in the last session they finally get done putting it back together.

Saving the world at first level is pointless, because the players don't know the world. They need a chance to explore the world, to gain a connection to it, before saving the world has any meaning.

 

[Piratecat]

In the game I'm thinking of, it took around 40 to 50 sessions to level up due to the DM's tone deafness.

I'm sorry. I couldn't possibly play, because I'm too busy strangling myself with my own belt.

 

[ggroy]

I'm sorry. I couldn't possibly play, because I'm too busy strangling myself with my own belt.

These guys weren't that type.

In that particular game, it was a long term D&D game which had three other players who were also high functioning autistic or asperger. It was a constantly revolving door for the fourth, fifth, and sixth player spots, where typically the non-autistic/non-asperger players ended up quitting after a few months of playing from being bored out of their skulls.

On the other side of the coin, it turned out these three long term players who were high functioning autistic or asperger, actually really liked playing D&D in this manner with very high detail at a very slow pace. For them, it was their "heaven" on earth.