why hate rpg systems with levels?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
Some people find that the levels are too granular for their tastes. For them, the jumps in power from one level to the next are artificial, and don't simulate the gradual growth of a person very well. They prefer a system in which your character growth happens more steadily.
Personally, I find that spaced out over the life of the character, the 20 or so jumps in power are about equivalent to the jumps I'd see spending batches of XP in other systems. I just don't see the discontinuities between levels to be large enough to get in the way of my role-playing. YMMV.
Personally, I find that spaced out over the life of the character, the 20 or so jumps in power are about equivalent to the jumps I'd see spending batches of XP in other systems. I just don't see the discontinuities between levels to be large enough to get in the way of my role-playing. YMMV.
dvvega
Explorer
Even so-called gradual progression advancement systems are levelling but not in the d20 way.
The main difference is that in a gradual system you choose waht to advance, while in the d20 system you are basically told what to advance with a few choices.
For example Vampire: The Masquerade gave you XP at the end of each session (nominally 5 maximum) and you used those as you saw fit. To improve things you would pay a multiple of the current value ... so a skill would cost a number of points equal to the level you wanted to get (if I remember correctly).
Somethings cost double the amount you wish etc.
You are essentially levelling up in those systems, they're just not labelled levelling up.
For example, gaining a level of Fighters gives you BAB+1 amongst other things, to simulate the same concept in a point-buy system you would improve your combat trait.
Most of the anti-levellers just want to argue that they can minutely determine where their experience is put, instead of paying for a package of stuff.
As someone who has played all manner of systems, none is better than any other in my opinion.
D
The main difference is that in a gradual system you choose waht to advance, while in the d20 system you are basically told what to advance with a few choices.
For example Vampire: The Masquerade gave you XP at the end of each session (nominally 5 maximum) and you used those as you saw fit. To improve things you would pay a multiple of the current value ... so a skill would cost a number of points equal to the level you wanted to get (if I remember correctly).
Somethings cost double the amount you wish etc.
You are essentially levelling up in those systems, they're just not labelled levelling up.
For example, gaining a level of Fighters gives you BAB+1 amongst other things, to simulate the same concept in a point-buy system you would improve your combat trait.
Most of the anti-levellers just want to argue that they can minutely determine where their experience is put, instead of paying for a package of stuff.
As someone who has played all manner of systems, none is better than any other in my opinion.
D
Emiricol
Registered User
Given that this is a D20-focused forum I can't imagine many folks here hate level systems, nor do I 
But levels, in the D20 style, don't do everything perfectly. Different tools for different jobs.
From what I can tell, the people who hate level-based game systems mostly dislike the constraints it puts on them (as well as the sensation of sudden vast improvement). I think there's a mental hurdle somewhere along the path between incremental and level-based.
But levels, in the D20 style, don't do everything perfectly. Different tools for different jobs.From what I can tell, the people who hate level-based game systems mostly dislike the constraints it puts on them (as well as the sensation of sudden vast improvement). I think there's a mental hurdle somewhere along the path between incremental and level-based.
Levels make the "power-gaming" element of an RPG very transparent.
A player can ask another player: "Hey, I'm 2nd level. What level are you?"
This knowledge, while not "in-game" knowledge, can still affect the mood of the game.
In a skill-based system, it is harder for players to meta-game in this fashion. In GURPS, for example, a player might say: "Hey, my character is worth a total of 122 points. How many total points is your character worth?" This example would never happen though because a player never keeps track of his points like this.
I have a player in my game who loves advancing in levels -- he just loves powering his PC up with each level. Now, there's nothing wrong with this. I love it, too; but I think this player is looking too intently at that glowing, neon sign that shows character power (the level) and forgetting about the personality of the PC. None of the other player's are complaining, however, because they are enjoying the "game experience" and that neon beacon -- their character level -- is more "invisible" to them as they play (as it should be!).
So, what I'm saying is that in a skill-based system the game-mechanic that shows power is more invisible and leads to less problems of excessive power-gaming. Problem players would be forced to focus more on the mood/personality/in-game knowledge of the RPG at hand.
So, basically, in my experience, I've found that levels can be a power-gamer's delight. There's nothing wrong with power-gaming by the way; all D&D players do it (I do it everytime I salivate at advancing a level! There is nothing wrong with this.). It's just when power-gaming ruins the mood/feel of the game that you have a problem and levels have done this to my game recently.
P.S. I love D&D and still use levels.
A player can ask another player: "Hey, I'm 2nd level. What level are you?"
This knowledge, while not "in-game" knowledge, can still affect the mood of the game.
In a skill-based system, it is harder for players to meta-game in this fashion. In GURPS, for example, a player might say: "Hey, my character is worth a total of 122 points. How many total points is your character worth?" This example would never happen though because a player never keeps track of his points like this.
I have a player in my game who loves advancing in levels -- he just loves powering his PC up with each level. Now, there's nothing wrong with this. I love it, too; but I think this player is looking too intently at that glowing, neon sign that shows character power (the level) and forgetting about the personality of the PC. None of the other player's are complaining, however, because they are enjoying the "game experience" and that neon beacon -- their character level -- is more "invisible" to them as they play (as it should be!).
So, what I'm saying is that in a skill-based system the game-mechanic that shows power is more invisible and leads to less problems of excessive power-gaming. Problem players would be forced to focus more on the mood/personality/in-game knowledge of the RPG at hand.
So, basically, in my experience, I've found that levels can be a power-gamer's delight. There's nothing wrong with power-gaming by the way; all D&D players do it (I do it everytime I salivate at advancing a level! There is nothing wrong with this.). It's just when power-gaming ruins the mood/feel of the game that you have a problem and levels have done this to my game recently.
P.S. I love D&D and still use levels.
Tyler Do'Urden
Soap Maker
Level-Based systems encourage powergaming???
It's been my experience that, rather than encouraging powergaming, level-based systems actually encourage more well-rounded characters by forcing players to advance skills in many different areas, rather than just one or two. For instance, D&D maintains a separate advancement system for basic combat, special skills (feats), non-combat skills (skill points/ranks), magic (spellcaster advancement), and toughness (hp)- and by taking levels, players advance in all respects. My experience, in point-based systems, is that people will push all of their skill points into one or two valuable skills, while ignoring all others- especially knowledges, engineering/craft abilities, and, often to their great peril, resistances- they become one-trick ponies. In my d20 Star Wars game, years ago, we had highly specialized characters who often couldn't pull of their missions because all of their points were shoved into combat skills or maxed out piloting and hacking abilities- leaving little ability to make emergency repairs, recall important information, or negotiate through problems (without using a blaster or lightsaber). They never had any trouble in combat, at least.
I also prefer level-based systems because they make challenges much easier to balance- you generally know the toughness of the party based on their character levels. This is much more difficult to do in point-based systems (even ones with recorded point pools, such as GURPS)- since characters aren't always developed holistically, balancing a threat becomes much more difficult. And since I hate fudging die rolls (I like to be impartial, "Lawful Evil"- my NPC's are just as smart as the PC's, and the PC's lives are worth no more than theirs), this leaves me in a bit of a bind.
So, in general, I find level-based systems much easier to use, and harder to abuse (though it's certainly still possible...)
It's been my experience that, rather than encouraging powergaming, level-based systems actually encourage more well-rounded characters by forcing players to advance skills in many different areas, rather than just one or two. For instance, D&D maintains a separate advancement system for basic combat, special skills (feats), non-combat skills (skill points/ranks), magic (spellcaster advancement), and toughness (hp)- and by taking levels, players advance in all respects. My experience, in point-based systems, is that people will push all of their skill points into one or two valuable skills, while ignoring all others- especially knowledges, engineering/craft abilities, and, often to their great peril, resistances- they become one-trick ponies. In my d20 Star Wars game, years ago, we had highly specialized characters who often couldn't pull of their missions because all of their points were shoved into combat skills or maxed out piloting and hacking abilities- leaving little ability to make emergency repairs, recall important information, or negotiate through problems (without using a blaster or lightsaber). They never had any trouble in combat, at least.
I also prefer level-based systems because they make challenges much easier to balance- you generally know the toughness of the party based on their character levels. This is much more difficult to do in point-based systems (even ones with recorded point pools, such as GURPS)- since characters aren't always developed holistically, balancing a threat becomes much more difficult. And since I hate fudging die rolls (I like to be impartial, "Lawful Evil"- my NPC's are just as smart as the PC's, and the PC's lives are worth no more than theirs), this leaves me in a bit of a bind.
So, in general, I find level-based systems much easier to use, and harder to abuse (though it's certainly still possible...)
Anax
First Post
I don't hate level systems, but after recently playing though KOTOR2, I started to become itchy about them. (Admittedly, this isn't the first time I've thought about the problem.)
The essential problem with a level based system is the huge gulf between "high-level" and "low-level" characters. The difference between a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter isn't the difference between a trained but novice swordsman and an expert veteran swordsman, it's the difference between a human and a demigod.
Now, that's not *all* bad--but I do think that the curve is too steep. Even five levels of difference is enough that the lower level character cannot credibly help the higher level character. Even an entire army of level 1 fighters can't bring down a level 20 fighter.
Of course, that's partially how it's meant to be--this is a heroic game, after all. But at the same time, it presents a problem in how to handle "levelling up". Creatures that were threats at lower levels cease to become threats at higher levels, unless you use a *significant* amount of effort to beef them up.
Of course, this was most obvious to me in KOTOR2. Why? Because the *story* was much more important than the level of the characters. The fights scale to match your party, sort of. But they do tend to be on the underpowered side. But why is that the case? Well, part of it is that the party level at a given point in the plot is very difficult to predict--is this person a "do all the sidequests" type, or a "follow the plot straight through" type?
In a P&P game, the DM has control here. Theoretically, the DM is empowered to adjust the difficulty of all encounters so that they have you on edge. But even a very good DM can misestimate this--in the campaign I play in, we like a good fight, but we also tend to spend a fair amount of time not fighting. We average one combat encounter a session (we meet once a week for six hours or so.) In our campaign, the DM tends to give us encounters that are too weak, simply because we rarely have to pull out all the stops. And because he tends to believe that verisimilitude is important, he's more likely to try to throw large groups of less powerful creatures at us than small groups of very powerful creatures. In any case, a very good DM will "fudge" things as necessary to bring about the right sense of tension for the group. Too easy? Change the number of hitpoints the creatures have behind the scenes. Still too easy? Have a couple of beefed up monster types ready to roll into the encounter late. Too hard? Let the enemies drop a bit more easily, but never so easy that the players realize you're doing it.
So a good DM can adjust encounters to be appropriate to the characters. (Likewise for non-combat skill things, like knowledge or diplomacy. Diplomacy gets *really* hard for characters with a lot of skill, though, until you rule zero the tables.)
Some people might be saying at this point "well, but you can just slow down the rate of XP gain, etc. etc." You *can* do that, and we've been considering it, because the DM is unsure about taking us into epic levels (which we might expect to happen some time the middle of this summer.) But, there's a countervailing force here--and likewise, this is the reason that KOTOR2 has trouble with levels--which is the players' desire to have new neat stuff to be able to do. In both KOTOR2 and our campaign, what's really happening is that as our characters level up, the entire universe becomes tougher to meet us. Why? Because of this pressure for new neat stuff to play with.
For my own (monk/rogue) character, I don't really care about the increased attack bonus and saving throws--those are just bookkeeping--what I like is having a neat new tactic to apply. Or a new ability that I can tie in to my character's background. These special features add a greater feeling of having a lot of options, even though you're still pretty constrained to only using a few of those abilities in any one go. Like I said, in our campaign we rarely pull out all the stops. When we do, it's tremendous fun. When we don't, it's fun to try to apply the best tactics to the situation that we can.
In any case, the trouble for us is: we want new toys, but in the process of getting new toys we become closer and closer to becoming superhuman. Not because we want to be ubermensch, but because that's how things work--you level up, you get toys, you get these other things.
So what it comes down to for me is this: I don't think there should be such an enormous power differential between "high level" and "low level" characters. Unless really special circumstances apply, I think a mob of commoners should have a good chance to take down the most powerful knight in the realm. But at the same time, that knight should have a huge knowledge of tactics, etc. etc. while the commoners have good old fashioned torches, pitchforks, and big rocks.
I guess in a way, this is what people think of when they talk about "gritty". And it sort of applies here. In any case, I'd favor a more fluid system where a character can develop a greater number of options, or a greater specialization in just a few options, or a mixture of both. And while some mixes will always end up being "better" mechanically than others, they should all be workable. I think that D&D 3E (and 3.5E) has done this remarkably well, while keeping the old school (and kind of fun) level mechanic. But I also think that there is *lots* of room in the world for systems like DP9's Silhouette Core, where you don't have this additional idea of "level" that instantly separates the merely competent from the superheroes. Not that you can't go to huge lengths in such systems and end up with the same kind of difficult power curve--but I think that by smoothing things out, there's more room to experiment. You don't *need* to level up to gain a new skill, technique, whatever. All you need to do is have some free XP and spend it. And the weaker the new thing, the cheaper it is.
So--if you want a world where the best of the best are like giants among men, a level based system like D&D is great. (And fun!)
But at the same time, if you need a change of pace, a non-level based system might be worth looking at for a while. (My model for "power" for this kind of setup is that the greatest runner in the world might *still* always beat anybody else who competes with him, but a skilled novice who trains hard for a year ought to be able to get into the upper ranks. That is: it's less about time spent in the field, and more about dedication. A veteran always has polish that a newcomer can't match, but the difference in level between the rank amateur and the dedicated new guy should be much much larger than the difference between the dedicated new guy and the veteran.)
End of rant, which doesn't contain much hating, I think, but should shed some light on why there's a desire to adventure using a non-level-based system.
The essential problem with a level based system is the huge gulf between "high-level" and "low-level" characters. The difference between a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter isn't the difference between a trained but novice swordsman and an expert veteran swordsman, it's the difference between a human and a demigod.
Now, that's not *all* bad--but I do think that the curve is too steep. Even five levels of difference is enough that the lower level character cannot credibly help the higher level character. Even an entire army of level 1 fighters can't bring down a level 20 fighter.
Of course, that's partially how it's meant to be--this is a heroic game, after all. But at the same time, it presents a problem in how to handle "levelling up". Creatures that were threats at lower levels cease to become threats at higher levels, unless you use a *significant* amount of effort to beef them up.
Of course, this was most obvious to me in KOTOR2. Why? Because the *story* was much more important than the level of the characters. The fights scale to match your party, sort of. But they do tend to be on the underpowered side. But why is that the case? Well, part of it is that the party level at a given point in the plot is very difficult to predict--is this person a "do all the sidequests" type, or a "follow the plot straight through" type?
In a P&P game, the DM has control here. Theoretically, the DM is empowered to adjust the difficulty of all encounters so that they have you on edge. But even a very good DM can misestimate this--in the campaign I play in, we like a good fight, but we also tend to spend a fair amount of time not fighting. We average one combat encounter a session (we meet once a week for six hours or so.) In our campaign, the DM tends to give us encounters that are too weak, simply because we rarely have to pull out all the stops. And because he tends to believe that verisimilitude is important, he's more likely to try to throw large groups of less powerful creatures at us than small groups of very powerful creatures. In any case, a very good DM will "fudge" things as necessary to bring about the right sense of tension for the group. Too easy? Change the number of hitpoints the creatures have behind the scenes. Still too easy? Have a couple of beefed up monster types ready to roll into the encounter late. Too hard? Let the enemies drop a bit more easily, but never so easy that the players realize you're doing it.
So a good DM can adjust encounters to be appropriate to the characters. (Likewise for non-combat skill things, like knowledge or diplomacy. Diplomacy gets *really* hard for characters with a lot of skill, though, until you rule zero the tables.)
Some people might be saying at this point "well, but you can just slow down the rate of XP gain, etc. etc." You *can* do that, and we've been considering it, because the DM is unsure about taking us into epic levels (which we might expect to happen some time the middle of this summer.) But, there's a countervailing force here--and likewise, this is the reason that KOTOR2 has trouble with levels--which is the players' desire to have new neat stuff to be able to do. In both KOTOR2 and our campaign, what's really happening is that as our characters level up, the entire universe becomes tougher to meet us. Why? Because of this pressure for new neat stuff to play with.
For my own (monk/rogue) character, I don't really care about the increased attack bonus and saving throws--those are just bookkeeping--what I like is having a neat new tactic to apply. Or a new ability that I can tie in to my character's background. These special features add a greater feeling of having a lot of options, even though you're still pretty constrained to only using a few of those abilities in any one go. Like I said, in our campaign we rarely pull out all the stops. When we do, it's tremendous fun. When we don't, it's fun to try to apply the best tactics to the situation that we can.
In any case, the trouble for us is: we want new toys, but in the process of getting new toys we become closer and closer to becoming superhuman. Not because we want to be ubermensch, but because that's how things work--you level up, you get toys, you get these other things.
So what it comes down to for me is this: I don't think there should be such an enormous power differential between "high level" and "low level" characters. Unless really special circumstances apply, I think a mob of commoners should have a good chance to take down the most powerful knight in the realm. But at the same time, that knight should have a huge knowledge of tactics, etc. etc. while the commoners have good old fashioned torches, pitchforks, and big rocks.
I guess in a way, this is what people think of when they talk about "gritty". And it sort of applies here. In any case, I'd favor a more fluid system where a character can develop a greater number of options, or a greater specialization in just a few options, or a mixture of both. And while some mixes will always end up being "better" mechanically than others, they should all be workable. I think that D&D 3E (and 3.5E) has done this remarkably well, while keeping the old school (and kind of fun) level mechanic. But I also think that there is *lots* of room in the world for systems like DP9's Silhouette Core, where you don't have this additional idea of "level" that instantly separates the merely competent from the superheroes. Not that you can't go to huge lengths in such systems and end up with the same kind of difficult power curve--but I think that by smoothing things out, there's more room to experiment. You don't *need* to level up to gain a new skill, technique, whatever. All you need to do is have some free XP and spend it. And the weaker the new thing, the cheaper it is.
So--if you want a world where the best of the best are like giants among men, a level based system like D&D is great. (And fun!)
But at the same time, if you need a change of pace, a non-level based system might be worth looking at for a while. (My model for "power" for this kind of setup is that the greatest runner in the world might *still* always beat anybody else who competes with him, but a skilled novice who trains hard for a year ought to be able to get into the upper ranks. That is: it's less about time spent in the field, and more about dedication. A veteran always has polish that a newcomer can't match, but the difference in level between the rank amateur and the dedicated new guy should be much much larger than the difference between the dedicated new guy and the veteran.)
End of rant, which doesn't contain much hating, I think, but should shed some light on why there's a desire to adventure using a non-level-based system.
I don't use either levels or point buy for my house system, and in general it depends on the kind of game I want to play. The Orpheus game I'm in now wouldn't be as good with levels, since in Orpheus you can greatly change your moment to moment power, making verall power level a dicey thing to impose. At the same time, a point-based D&D game has problems because you don't know whether everybody bought the central traits they need to survive encounters.
Similar Threads
