Would you play a D&D campaign without leveling?

[Rhenny]

Personally, leveling my pc is one of the most rewarding parts of the game experience. I would play in a campaign without leveling, but I would probably not feel as much of a sense of accomplishment or character development. I played 1e when I was a teen and the slow leveling probably contributed to less enthusiasm at high levels.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Sure, why not? As one or two others have said, "back in ye olden days of yore..." (re: 1e), leveling was a LOT slower. When you hit about level 4 or 5, after playing weekly for around an equal number of months, getting to that next level was pretty much like starting a new character from scratch with 0xp. The XP amount needed would pretty much double at that point (like, 16k to hit level 5...now you need 32k total to get to level 6; depending on class, obviously). The point is...I'm used to, and prefer, that speed of leveling. IMNSHO, it should take about a year of 8hr/wk play to hit about level 9 or 10. After that, gaining 2 levels per year, roughly, is a good speed. To hit level 20 SHOULD take about 6 years or so. That's how long it took me to get my 1e MU to level 20 (and my friends to get their fighters to level 22...although one was level 16 at the end of the 'campaign' due to a rather unfortunate run in with a lucky as hell vampire...but that's a whole other story!).

As for a 5e campaign with "no leveling"...I think it would work just fine, mechanics wise. I mean, start everyone at X level with equipment and cash equivalent to a 1st level character. Now you have motivation and a sense of 'material accomplishment' as they advance. Being able to buy better weapons, armour, pick up horses, hirelings, wagons, 'luxury' camping equipment (pavilions, portable bathtub, etc)...all that would give the player a sense of "getting better".

With regard to "doing an AP like Storm Kings Thunder"...no-leveling makes even more sense. One of the, if not THE, most vile thing that an AP does is 'force' the PC's to level up. Just ONCE I'd like to see a full-fledged 'Adventure Path' start PC's at level 4 and end at level 7. IMHO, just about every single AP ever produced would have benefited from having a MUCH smaller level range. If they were done right, you could have even tied multiple AP's together to form a grand campaign story! But no. Today's "gotta have it NOW" mentality would have a conniption fit if they played the same 7th level character for 10 sessions in a row and didn't gain a level. Too bad...

Yes. I'd play. Sign me up!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Satyrn]

Being able to buy better weapons, armour, pick up horses, hirelings, wagons, 'luxury' camping equipment (pavilions, portable bathtub, etc)...all that would give the player a sense of "getting better".

and strongholds! I've started kitting up how my players can secure and protect buildings or areas in the megadungeon they're exploring. These strongholds would function as forward bases, safe places to take a long rest, but they'd have to be manned by mercenaries or some other force (hello, necromancer!). So lots of capital is needed to maintain them, but doing so means being able to delve deeper for greater wealth.

At first, early on, I'm seeing this happening as Guild-funded missions the players can take, securing territory for whichever faction the players choose to join. Over time, the players might take the initiative and conquer what they want, when they want, using their own gold.

They can also ignore it all if the want (though resting deep in the dungeon will be harder). It all depends on how much power they want, represented the way power is in the real world: money and land.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Yeah, [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION], strongholds! And Towers! And Guildhouses! And Citidels! And Inn/Taverns! Rarely, however, do players (at least in my experience) really want to "invest" in such things. Er, except for that last one...I've had more then my fair share of PC adventuring groups buy/build their own Inn/Tavern.

I backed Matt Coville's kickstarter "Strongholds" (I think that's what it's called; https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/255133215/strongholds-and-streaming ), which, from what I gather so far, is sort of like taking a couple of good RPG "domain building" books/rpgs, tossing in a lot of real-life stuff, and sprinkling some new and interesting "magics n' whatnot". It's still baking in the oven, but when it comes out...well, I have high hopes for it!

What I generally use for my 'fantasy games' for this sort of thing is the Hackmaster 4th "Lord Flataroy's Guide to Fortifications" and/or the BECMI rules. That said, I DO now own pretty much all the HERO System books in hardcopy (man...was THAT expensive!), and one of the book is the "Ultimate Guide to Bases" which goes into all that 'base building' stuff. Some great info in general in all the HERO System books, if I do say so myself!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

No.

Best thing about D&D: PCs getting better and better.
Just so fantastic and far from real life.

So, slow advancement, yes.
No advancement, no.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I would as long as my character could change. I don't mind not getting more abilities as long as I can change my capabilities over time in response to the scenario.

So, as a magician, that's fairly easy. I can determine I need a new selection of spells and undergo the cost and time for that. For a fighter or rogue, I'm not sure how you could retrain if you decided you needed a different set of skills.

I would also prefer to be at around 12th level.

 

[Staccat0]

For sure. The most interesting character changes are stuff where you sell your soul to a god or lose an eye or whatever. Learning how to beat the enemy with player knowledge and clever tactics. The mechanical stuff is kinda annoying half the time.

 

[Savevsdeath]

Nah. if i want to start somewhere and mostly stay there, i'd play another system. I need some kind of progression to inject newness into characters, and if the level the game was stuck at was too low i'd get bored in 2-3 sessions because I knew that what my character can do now is all he'll ever be capable of. The biggest problem with it is that my character is my way of interacting with the world, and when said character is incapable of handling a situation i know he will always remain so barring DM generosity. I want the possibility of finding my own way to do the thing, and sometimes that's just not possible without some growth in power and capability. Plus I want my characters to have the possibility of becoming epic, world-shaking heroes. I have very rarely gotten to see the upper levels of power in any edition of D&D over the past 20+ years of playing and the few times I have, I loved it. Knowing this character whose legacy i have envisioned from the start can never achieve it would kill it for me.

 

[Horwath]

Yes.

But I would like some kind of character advancement.

I.E.

After milestones, you get a feat.

Or you can "gestalt level" to your level limit.
That is, if you are 9th level fighter, and at milestone instead of a feat, you get a feature of 1st level of a second class, or 2nd level later on. To a max of 9th level.

 

[Azurewraith]

If we where playing in the sweet spot I see no reason to gain any levels. Honestly I think the entire 20 levels is just to much anyway, even 10 could be seen as to much. Once a character hits 5 or 7 they have everything in their kit that they need to fulfil what is expected if their roles without turning into demi gods.

I am slightly biased though as I much prefer small plots such as solving the strife of a small town vs saving the universe. You know what I may try and pitch this to my group.