Would you play a D&D campaign without leveling?

[billd91]

How do FATE, Gumshoe and Cortex+ overcome this repetition in a way that D&D can't?

I think for the most part they don’t any more than D&D does. You can have just as much variation and avoid repetition in D&D as you can in Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, Champions, or any other non-leveling game as long as you choose to play it that way.

The trouble is, games with more discrete level-ups like D&D and lots of computer RPGs (and even time waster tablet and social media games like Candy Crush) have really made the feedback loop very addictive, and so you get players who chafe at relatively static characters.

 

[Lanefan]

While I'm not at all enamoured with 3-4-5e-style fast levelling - a level a year is fine with me - I'd probably be a little bit 'meh' toward a long-term game (as in, more than a year or two) where we never levelled at all.

That said, I can think of some ideas to make it work:
- - have each player rotate characters in and out of parties now and then so as to a) avoid getting bored with always playing the same character and b) avoid getting bored with always running with the same companions. Side benefit: a rotated-out character doesn't have to worry about falling behind in level!
- - use things like magic items to in a small way replicate advancement, either by having the items themselves slowly improve over time or by placing more powerful items in later adventures
- - find or make or somehow determine a long or open-ended story that grabs the players' interest and more or less subtly railroad them* through it; the hard part here is finding or generating a good enough story in the first place
- - make the primary focus something like courtly intrigue where game-mechanical power level - in particular combat level - doesn't matter as much to the run of play. Birthright, anyone?
- - in concert with the above, make the character's place in society its own form of advancement: nobody ==> citizen ==> celebrity ==> noble or politician or courtier ==> ruler, for example

* - I'm fully expecting to catch hell for daring to suggest this

 

[Reynard]

Thus, if you then effectively freeze development in the combat system, there's nowhere else for a player to look.

Other than the adventure, setting, characters and plot.

I mean, sure, if you did the same thing all the time AND provided no form of character development I can see how it would be boring and repetitive, but I don't see why simply removing the leveling aspect would require any of that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

First, it is not "can't". Insofar as any game can be houseruled up one side and down the other, there's nothing that absolutely cannot be done. I am instead focused on "does not, as written, have mechanics or really good guidelines to do". The measure by which I decide if I would not use a system for X, is how much effort I need to put in to make it do X.

Overall, what these games have are skill and conflict resolution systems that have some depth and tactical opportunities. D&D has loaded its tactical richness into combat, and by comparison the rest of the skill and resolution system is... shallow, uninteresting, and lacking in ways to approach or handle complex problems. Thus, if you then effectively freeze development in the combat system, there's nowhere else for a player to look.

In addition, several of these games have explicit ways to handle character development and change, without outright advancement in power. In FATE, for example, there are times you can trade skills around, and even alter Aspects, effectively giving up power in one place to pick it up in another - balanced in overall power, but changing dynamically over time.

Fate gets held up as an example in so many of these discussions; I wish The One Ring would come up more often. There are some things I would change/tweak about TOR, but it offers several features relevant to this conversation:
- The "leveling" curve is actually pretty flat. Your skills improve...slowly...but over the course of your adventuring career your damage output maybe doubles, and your AC/HP (not called that) barely change.
- Although Combat is still the richest (rule-wise) pillar, Journeys and Social Encounters are much more thought out than just "roll a skill and if it's higher than X you're good".
- Character background and development are baked into the rules, without forcing the players to RP in order to use their mechanics.

(As an aside, if rumors be true, TOR was the inspiration for the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.)

 

[Quartz]

Yes, I've done levelless before, in MERP. It was fun.

 

[Quartz]

(As an aside, if rumors be true, TOR was the inspiration for the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.)

IIRC The Advantage mechanic occurs much earlier than 2011 in Sepulchrave's Chronicles of Wyre, though it's not called that.

 

[Umbran]

Other than the adventure, setting, characters and plot.

We are talking about system choice. We can provide setting, characters, adventure/plot in any system, so these are not a reason to choose the D&D system for a fixed-power-level game.

I think there's a cogent argument to be had that D&D's system is *strongly* focused on putting player tactical choices in combat - the skill and resolution systems for other things are shallow or non-existent. The system a bit weak in the non-combat areas, so our adventures and plots are rather oriented towards use of violence.

Thus - any system that at a given power level gives us violence *and* more of other things would be likely be a better choice.

 

[Reynard]

Thus - any system that at a given power level gives us violence *and* more of other things would be likely be a better choice.

I see you point, though I do think there's an argument to be made that the loose (some would say non existent) skill system is a boon in this regard: the DM is free to make those non combat aspects as involved or as light as necessary to meet the preferences of his group.

 

[Umbran]

I see you point, though I do think there's an argument to be made that the loose (some would say non existent) skill system is a boon in this regard: the DM is free to make those non combat aspects as involved or as light as necessary to meet the preferences of his group.

That's not an argument *for* one game over another, because any game can be house ruled.

I am trying to look for a game that plays well in the long run without power creeping up. Let us say I have a checklist of items that I think are important for this. That you can fill in any check box with a house rule does not mean it is actually checked! Being able to do work to make up for a shortcoming does not mean it is a better choice than the system for which you don't need to do the work!

 

[Reynard]

That's not an argument *for* one game over another, because any game can be house ruled.

I am trying to look for a game that plays well in the long run without power creeping up. Let us say I have a checklist of items that I think are important for this. That you can fill in any check box with a house rule does not mean it is actually checked! Being able to do work to make up for a shortcoming does not mean it is a better choice than the system for which you don't need to do the work!

But the supposition here is that there is no power creep because levels do not increase. So that being the case, why is D&D inferior? I don't doubt your point of view, I'm just curious.