How many Levels do you like in your Level based rpgs?

RPGPundit · June 10, 2014, 04:29:18 PM

I would not find levels 1-10 (or 1-11) sufficient in standard D&D, myself.

However, in DCC I think 0-10 is acceptable, because really there is a change in the power level; a 5th level DCC character is a lot more powerful than a 5th level AD&D 1e character.

Bill · June 11, 2014, 09:10:46 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;757195I would not find levels 1-10 (or 1-11) sufficient in standard D&D, myself.

However, in DCC I think 0-10 is acceptable, because really there is a change in the power level; a 5th level DCC character is a lot more powerful than a 5th level AD&D 1e character.

What are your thoughts on how levels are scaled?
Would 10 levels be more acceptable in dnd if a level 10 character was comparable to a level 20; idea being each level you gain could be beefier.

I guess I am questioning the need for lots of levels just to have them.

For example, Rolemaster has 50 levels, and it always felt a bit much even though I like that game system.

Coffee Zombie · June 11, 2014, 11:14:37 AM

I like the scale in OD&D & B/X. Around 9th level the characters transition from wandering adventurers to the movers and shakers of the setting, being exceptional fighters/wizards/whatevers, and having amassed a ton of wealth. It just feels like a natural progression.

Palladium basically capped at level 15. Don't think I ever got a character beyond 5th level in there, with weekly play. I got my Pathfinder group to 6th level at standard xp, and boosted them to 9th by the end of the campaign. The totals they were generating by that point were getting scary.

In our current Star Wars game, we're at 8th level or so, and it's beginning to feel like we should all have glowing Caste marks on our brows or something.

Crabbyapples · June 11, 2014, 11:17:41 AM

Is it cheating to say one?

Edit: Now a real answer, around 15, with the last five having huge barriers of entry.

Brander · June 11, 2014, 11:24:16 AM

Quote from: Crabbyapples;757381Is it cheating to say one?

Edit: Now a real answer, around 15, with the last five having huge barriers of entry.

I prefer games without classes and levels, but as long as you have some kind of advancement a sort of level system ends up showing up. I like how Savage Worlds has levels (being a range of XP and being used for pre-requisites), but no classes as such. In Gurps or Hero, there are, admittedly fuzzy, grouping of points around certain power levels. And even Classic Traveller has the number of terms of service (though as they get too high, the power level can kind of go down).

cranebump · June 11, 2014, 11:28:10 AM

The B/X progression, ending at level 14 for the humans. After that, it would be a bit to, um, "cosmic" for me.

jhkim · June 11, 2014, 12:20:48 PM

It seems like there are two questions being conflated here:

a) How much power difference do you want between starting characters and maximum-advancement characters?

b) How finely-grained do you want the steps of power to be?

Personally, I've not had great experiences with characters advancing from ordinary to superheroic. So starting from D&D level 1, I'd prefer top advancement to be more like to a D&D level 10. However, those steps could be more finely grained - so I'd be fine with a level-based RPG that went from 1 to 20 where level 20 has power approximately like level 10 in AD&D.

Bill · June 11, 2014, 03:15:08 PM

Quote from: jhkim;757395It seems like there are two questions being conflated here:

a) How much power difference do you want between starting characters and maximum-advancement characters?

b) How finely-grained do you want the steps of power to be?

Personally, I've not had great experiences with characters advancing from ordinary to superheroic. So starting from D&D level 1, I'd prefer top advancement to be more like to a D&D level 10. However, those steps could be more finely grained - so I'd be fine with a level-based RPG that went from 1 to 20 where level 20 has power approximately like level 10 in AD&D.

That sounds good to me. If one wanted 'more' like mightier spells, they could customize them. But as a core game concept, I would probably enjoy it.

Or just make it ten levels.

LordVreeg · June 11, 2014, 03:32:30 PM

Quote from: Bill;755356Just curious what everyone prefers.
I tend to think many rpg's have 'too many' levels.
Dnd would be 'better' in my opinion, if it topped off at about level 12 instead of 20, 30, or whatever.

Or is it just how those levels are scaled that matters?

What do people think?

I frontload when I design in class/level games. my last one had level 2 at 750 exp, but the gain needed per level is built to get much slower after 5, and glacial after 10.

Marleycat · June 11, 2014, 03:55:28 PM

Quote from: LordVreeg;757460I frontload when I design in class/level games. my last one had level 2 at 750 exp, but the gain needed per level is built to get much slower after 5, and glacial after 10.

I absolutely hate that method. If you don't want to play at that level then don't put in any level for it. Don't go you can be level 15 if you get 45,000,000 experience points. It's pointless and could be argued by many as being vindictive.

Just do what ACKS or LL does make it 10 levels or do the 14 levels and spells above 6th are rituals with reachable points like maybe 500,000 exp total, it gives you a reason for an endgame it doesn't penalize racial level limits and it's relevant enough to try and actually accomplish as a goal.

Doom · June 11, 2014, 04:28:10 PM

3E/Pf play has really started to turn me off on levels...so, 50 levels, maybe, with a system so granular that a 1st level character won't be utterly overmatched by a 5th level character of the same type?

LordVreeg · June 11, 2014, 05:01:13 PM

Quote from: Marleycat;757466I absolutely hate that method. If you don't want to play at that level then don't put in any level for it. Don't go you can be level 15 if you get 45,000,000 experience points. It's pointless and could be argued by many as being vindictive.

Just do what ACKS or LL does make it 10 levels or do the 14 levels and spells above 6th are rituals with reachable points like maybe 500,000 exp total, it gives you a reason for an endgame it doesn't penalize racial level limits and it's relevant enough to try and actually accomplish as a goal.

It's OK to hate it. 90% of my games are skill based, and they do what they are supposed to.
The experience amounts + rate of loss create the frequency distribution I want the world to have. The rules represent the physics engine of the world, as much as they exist to keep players happy. In a good game, they do both.

And this game is all humans, btw.

danskmacabre · June 11, 2014, 05:37:44 PM

I would add that I would want to see an RPG supporting up to around 20 levels easily, but for the purposes of supporting powerful NPCs, rather than for PCs to progress to.

Scott Anderson · June 11, 2014, 05:50:03 PM

A level 1 character ought to be a threat to a level 10 character. Maybe not a deadly threat, but enough that a 10 fighting four or six level 1 guys shouldn't be an autokill.

RPGPundit · June 13, 2014, 03:25:55 PM

Quote from: Bill;757350What are your thoughts on how levels are scaled?
Would 10 levels be more acceptable in dnd if a level 10 character was comparable to a level 20; idea being each level you gain could be beefier.

I guess I am questioning the need for lots of levels just to have them.

Well, in a way it remains to be seen, because the most powerful guys in my DCC game are currently (after a year of bi-monthly play) at about level 3-4. But I think that I'm ok with either 20 levels or 11, so long as they are playable all throughout.

RC D&D goes to level 36, and having played a campaign there from level 1 to level 36, I would say that the game is playable really well up to about level 20-25, but for the last 10 levels or so it is really not working very well. And I say that as a huge huge fan of the Rules Cyclopedia.

RPGPundit