Quote from: The Traveller;643301Well we differ there. Jibbajabba has been at 13th level for the last ten years, using neither the XP or the level advancement rules, at a level of competence that suits him. Lots of people say that certain levels have a sweet spot, and this is the method I use - straight out the starting gate, characters in my game are well able to hold their own, reaching the same conclusion from a different angle. I'd say this supports my opinion on the value of levels in a game system.

But as I've said from the start, more power to those who enjoy them, and those who play the game as written, I hold it against nobody.

I think the rules account for starting at an appropriate, arbitrary level (I think I ran my last D&D 3.5 game starting at level 4) -- that's not what I'd think of as "removing" them.

As for staying at one power-level for an entire game: I've run games where the PC's didn't really increase in power level, when that was appropriate for the genre. I can't recall if I ever ran one in a level-based system (is D20 Modern level based?), but I could easily see a modern-day game where level advancement was slow because nothing was getting XP.

That wouldn't be different than, say, the same game run in GURPS with very few experience points given, no?

In any case, neither of these modifications are the "removal" of levels -- they're just games where the level settings are set by the GM -- something entirely allowable in the rules as written.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: The Traveller;643306Why, has someone strapped you to it?

I'm enjoying the other responders' posts quite a bit.

Quote from: -E.;643308I can't recall if I ever ran one in a level-based system (is D20 Modern level based?), but I could easily see a modern-day game where level advancement was slow because nothing was getting XP.

Characters in Age of Heroes can easily cap out their level for extended periods or even forever depending upon what threats they face and the risks taken.

For superhero games, there typically is never advancement. A result that I consider in keeping with the genre.

Quote from: -E.;643308In any case, neither of these modifications are the "removal" of levels -- they're just games where the level settings are set by the GM -- something entirely allowable in the rules as written.

If you aren't going to use a rule why have it, it may as well not exist. I don't think we're wholly in disagreement here to be honest.

Quote from: KenHR;643309I'm enjoying the other responders' posts quite a bit.

Words from the peanut gallery, always a valuable contribution to any thread.

Quote from: The Traveller;643313Words from the peanut gallery, always a valuable contribution to any thread.

No I get the last word

Quote from: The Traveller;643313If you aren't going to use a rule why have it, it may as well not exist. I don't think we're wholly in disagreement here to be honest.

Writing a rule is really a game-design consideration, no?

Whether or not a rule shows up in a given game is up to the GM. GURPS has literally dozens, if not hundreds of source books, each with lists of rules, right?

I might not use the GURPS magic rules in my GURPS Cops game, but that doesn't mean that GURPS magic is valueless, does it?

I'm not sure what you're saying here...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: gleichman;643311Characters in Age of Heroes can easily cap out their level for extended periods or even forever depending upon what threats they face and the risks taken.

For superhero games, there typically is never advancement. A result that I consider in keeping with the genre.

Yeah, exactly -- in my post apocalypse game, the PC's didn't go up levels unless they went after serious challenges... which led to some long stretches where they stayed mostly the same.

Agree with you about super heroes (although in Champions, I'd give out a point or two a session -- I think that many characters in the source fiction *do* get better over time, even if it's a very slow progression).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643329I'm not sure what you're saying here...

Traveller seems to be saying that if Levels don't affect your play, there is no reason to have Levels.

He's more interested in scoring debate points than actually examining what people are saying. If he stopped for a moment and listened, he'd know that no one has said that Levels don't effect the play of the game- they've said that they don't cause the automatic negative meta-gaming effects he claims they do.

While tangential to the current conversation; someone mentioned needing examples of abilities increasing levels.  The prime example, for me is, Legend of the Five Rings. The system allows increasing skills and attributes to directly increase rank (level) in the character's school (class).  Once you reach a certain threshold of 'insight' (experience spent), the character gains his new nifty unique abilities.

Quote from: -E.;643330Yeah, exactly -- in my post apocalypse game, the PC's didn't go up levels unless they went after serious challenges... which led to some long stretches where they stayed mostly the same.

Agree with you about super heroes (although in Champions, I'd give out a point or two a session -- I think that many characters in the source fiction *do* get better over time, even if it's a very slow progression).

Cheers,
-E.

Most superheroes stay about the same. Some get temporary boosts.
Some superheroes improve, and some get insane power boosts due to horrid writing. They actually gave the Flash, already quite powerful, an infinite mass punch (lol...physics called and wants it's logic back) and stealing other peoples speed. Over kill much?

 

But most stay the same.

Quote from: gleichman;643334Traveller seems to be saying that if Levels don't affect your play, there is no reason to have Levels.

He's more interested in scoring debate points than actually examining what people are saying. If he stopped for a moment and listened, he'd know that no one has said that Levels don't effect the play of the game- they've said that they don't cause the automatic negative meta-gaming effects he claims they do.

... if you're right, he needs to get out of the point-scoring business, because his point's completely lost on me.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643363... if you're right, he needs to get out of the point-scoring business, because his point's completely lost on me.

Cheers,
-E.

Gleichman is many things but rarely right. I put him on ignore after he came out with a statement to the effect that all role playing gamers who didn't follow his one true way were limp wristed homosexuals or similar. Or possibly just all role playing gamers period. Maybe he's put on his good boy pants since after realising he went too far, but whatever.

Levels are a dodgy mechanic, among many dodgy mechanics in D&D, a game which was put together in an ad hoc and patchy fashion to begin with and hasn't really gotten much more graceful with age. The last version met with resounding contempt from even this forum's mainstays for example, while it spawned a group of fans apparently known as the 4vengers, and what a fucking goldfish bowl that is.

While I respect that you've chosen to engage with this assertion rather than passive aggressive from the cheap seats like kenHR, I don't really hold out much hope of convincing some of the more strident adherents to D&D of this, seeing as it is a near religious article of faith for them, even going so far as to attempt to merge the seperate concepts of class and level.

I do understand why people use levels, and I don't hold it against them, but the core problem of disconnected mechanics leading to characters acting with regard to the metaconcept of levels rather than in character remains in my experience an issue, although I've deliberately avoided recounting tales of the many groups I know etc etc. When advancement is disconnected to what is being advanced, you have a problem with the mechanic. It may represent, or emulate, fine, but I'm not saying it is optimal unless you want to emulate a D&D game.

Some have made peace with that by simply not using the levelling up or XP rules, this supports what I'm saying.

Most of this is just repeating myself for the fifth time, so unless anyone has anything new to add, I'll leave it there. And no, personal abuse isn't adding anything new.

Quote from: The Traveller;643373Gleichman is many things but rarely right. I put him on ignore after he came out with a statement to the effect that all role playing gamers who didn't follow his one true way were limp wristed homosexuals or similar. Or possibly just all role playing gamers period. Maybe he's put on his good boy pants since after realising he went too far, but whatever.

Levels are a dodgy mechanic, among many dodgy mechanics in D&D, a game which was put together in an ad hoc and patchy fashion to begin with and hasn't really gotten much more graceful with age. The last version met with resounding contempt from even this forum's mainstays for example, while it spawned a group of fans apparently known as the 4vengers, and what a fucking goldfish bowl that is.

While I respect that you've chosen to engage with this assertion rather than passive aggressive from the cheap seats like kenHR, I don't really hold out much hope of convincing some of the more strident adherents to D&D of this, seeing as it is a near religious article of faith for them, even going so far as to attempt to merge the seperate concepts of class and level.

I do understand why people use levels, and I don't hold it against them, but the core problem of disconnected mechanics leading to characters acting with regard to the metaconcept of levels rather than in character remains in my experience an issue, although I've deliberately avoided recounting tales of the many groups I know etc etc. When advancement is disconnected to what is being advanced, you have a problem with the mechanic. It may represent, or emulate, fine, but I'm not saying it is optimal unless you want to emulate a D&D game.

Some have made peace with that by simply not using the levelling up or XP rules, this supports what I'm saying.

Most of this is just repeating myself for the fifth time, so unless anyone has anything new to add, I'll leave it there. And no, personal abuse isn't adding anything new.

I'm sorry you don't like levels -- I can understand having a personal dislike of certain mechanics and how that can really impact enjoyment of a game.

I'm blessed in that I enjoy (or, at worst, am not bothered by) a lot of things about D&D that really irritate some folks. While I mostly game with friends, when I do want to game with new groups it's easy to find people to play with.

If you'd like to enjoy D&D more, here's a couple of things I'd suggest

1) Don't look at the rules -- when the game isn't fun, the problem is with the people at the table. Levels don't lead to "characters acting with regard to the metaconcept" -- the problem is the people running those characters or the guy who' s unhappy with how his buddies are choosing to play the game.

2) Don't look at the mechanics as "dodgy" -- the game has stood the test of time and is by far the most played RPG in history. It's mechanics are obviously delivering fun for the overwhelming majority of gamers, so by any objective measure, they're great. I'm not saying you don't get to have an opinion about the game or a personal dislike of it, but if you want a greater experience out of D&D, starting with a greater appreciation of it would be a place to start.

D&D's not my most-favorite game in the world, by any means -- I didn't even play 4.0, for example, but my hobby owes a lot to it, and it's nice to acknowledge that.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643384If you'd like to enjoy D&D more, here's a couple of things I'd suggest

I don't think a call to like D&D no matter what and to put the blame for its failures on the players is the best approach. Nor is singing the praises of something simply because it sold well and is popular.

Now it's true that Traveller failures in this thread go beyond D&D and seem to be rather... disconnected from the subject to be honest. And perhaps with respect to him your advise is suited.

But I'd hate to see more widely applied, as I think it's part of the reason people accept bad game design in the first place.

Quote from: gleichman;643410I don't think a call to like D&D no matter what and to put the blame for its failures on the players is the best approach. Nor is singing the praises of something simply because it sold well and is popular.

Now it's true that Traveller failures in this thread go beyond D&D and seem to be rather... disconnected from the subject to be honest. And perhaps with respect to him your advise is suited.

But I'd hate to see more widely applied, as I think it's part of the reason people accept bad game design in the first place.

I'm not calling for anyone to like D&D -- not at all. For one thing, it would be hypocritical: I didn't play 2.x and I didn't play 4 -- I didn't think I'd like either much.

And I wouldn't blame it's players for finding (for example) AD&D's grappling rules to be broken.  AD&D, especially, had a number of kludges in it that were nobody's fault but the author's (and earlier editions spelled Lair wrong).

So yeah -- I'm not calling for people to suspend judgement of D&D or declaring it a perfect game beyond all games.

However: I'm skeptical of any framework that declares the iconic elements (levels, classes, hit points, etc.) to be objectively broken.

Here's why: Outside of rules that just don't work, I think judging the quality of a game is a bit like judging the quality of a work of art, which is to say, there are not many good objective measures and it's incredibly hard for critics to factor out personal taste.

My conclusion is that -- for movies, books, songs, etc... and (probably) for RPGs, the best test is the test of time. D&D passes. And while popularity by itself may not be a virtue, sustained popularity indicates (to me) that a work / game / whatever is effective at connecting with people.

I think that's a mark of quality.

I would also look at how it's influenced other works and media. D&D has set the standard for a variety of computer games as well as fictional works -- it has been hugely influential. Those iconic elements have translated (in many cases, with very little change) into a variety of influenced works.

To me, that says they were on to something.

None of this precludes criticisms of the sort you've leveled at it -- it also doesn't mean D&D can't be improved on... but I think concluding that D&D is a low quality game (as a whole) misses the bigger picture: we're about four decades into table-top RPGs existing... and only one or two with them (or their long shadow in the form of video games and secondary works) being a part of popular culture. It's early days.

So I'm recommending that (everyone) approach judgement of classic games -- ones that have been around a long time in much the same form as they started with -- with a bit of humility. I'm not a huge fan of Dickens, but his work will probably still be read when I'm long forgotten. I judge his writing low quality at my peril.

Cheers,
-E.