Quote from: Exploderwizard;846998Level gains do provide some mechanical benefit. Some hit points and a bonus or two might not seem like much because the real value in the level gain is for the player rather than the character. Surviving to higher levels is an indication of good play- something completely meaningless to the character.

Now once you change the game and everything important about play is on the character sheet and a fucking retarded monkey can push the buttons, then rewarding for good play is moot point because such a concept has been supplanted with the assumption of appropriate encounters and character survival.

In this case there DOES need to be a new shiny toy with every level. Gaining each level is no longer an achievement, it is an expectation that comes with a desire for more toys.

So basically you're saying that levels are a metagame concept that lets the DM give you a gold star on your report card?  

I don't like that interpretation at all.

Quote from: GreyICE;847005So basically you're saying that levels are a metagame concept that lets the DM give you a gold star on your report card?  

I don't like that interpretation at all.

Not trying to pick a fight with you - but you just defined it yourself.

It's kinda true. You level, DING! Your XP total denotes several of your PC's abilities have improved.

It *is* meta. How it's represented in-game by your GM is where you blur the dirty M-word.

I rather like the 5e concepts of levels in terms of what they mean. It's not about leveling for leveling's sake. It's about the representational aspects of what those levels mean in relation to the campaign world.

That's how I do it. So should everyone else. If not, then you're horrible.

sorry. I've been drinking Absolut. Is that too meta? fuck.

Quote from: GreyICE;847005So basically you're saying that levels are a metagame concept that lets the DM give you a gold star on your report card?  

In "old school" play, that is pretty much true -- at least from a "new school" POV. In old school play, the increase in hit points and possible increases it chance to hit and saving throws is actually enough reward. Since "new school" play apparently does not see these things as enough (or even as real rewards in some cases), that leaves levels as a metagame reward for the player.

I am always amazed to hear people say there is no real difference between old school and new school play when discussions like these bring up all sorts of differences -- many of them irreconcilable (in most cases).

Quote from: tenbones;847028Not trying to pick a fight with you - but you just defined it yourself.

It's kinda true. You level, DING! Your XP total denotes several of your PC's abilities have improved.

It *is* meta. How it's represented in-game by your GM is where you blur the dirty M-word.

I rather like the 5e concepts of levels in terms of what they mean. It's not about leveling for leveling's sake. It's about the representational aspects of what those levels mean in relation to the campaign world.

That's how I do it. So should everyone else. If not, then you're horrible.

sorry. I've been drinking Absolut. Is that too meta? fuck.

Sure, on a conceptual level when you include them in a system (the conceptual level is always meta, it has to be).  

But for the players, it should feel like a new power level.  Votan said it perfectly, the Wizard doesn't have a +4 when he had a +3, he has disintegrate.  That's cool.  

Certainly if the system is going to be super heavy and unwieldy like 3E or Pathfinder, it shouldn't also have levels that are meaningless.  It's like all that weight for nothing.

Levels are a metagame construct, plain and simple. What DMs do with it is another matter though.

Quote from: Doom;842762On the other hand, getting a new "I win" button every level sounds cool, but by the time you get to level 5, you're now looking at half a dozen potential game breakers...and that's only one character. A party of that, and things get pretty messy, pretty fast, with lots of page flipping and no way everyone can keep track of everything everyone can do.

I've been running 5th Ed for months now for various people.
I also run 5th ed for my kids and my 12 year old daughter is managing her 5th level Druid just fine.
My 15 year old son is completely familiar with his 5th level monk.
They've both been playing those characters from 1st level and have been having a blast leveling up and trying out their new character abilities.

I run 2*5th level NPCs in the party, a Fighter and Sorceror and I have no trouble running those and running the campaign at the same time.

If you have trouble running a 5th level DnD character, I suggest DnD is not for you, especially 5E. I mean that in all seriousness, not as a snarky comment.

Quote from: danskmacabre;847070I've been running 5th Ed for months now for various people.
I also run 5th ed for my kids and my 12 year old daughter is managing her 5th level Druid just fine.
My 15 year old son is completely familiar with his 5th level monk.
They've both been playing those characters from 1st level and have been having a blast leveling up and trying out their new character abilities.

I run 2*5th level NPCs in the party, a Fighter and Sorceror and I have no trouble running those and running the campaign at the same time.

If you have trouble running a 5th level DnD character, I suggest DnD is not for you, especially 5E. I mean that in all seriousness, not as a snarky comment.

I think it's a bit unfair to say that if you have trouble with or criticisms of one version if DnD it's not for you. The many and varied play styles and systems I've seen espoused and described on this site alone seem to say, "if having to track a bunch of kewl powerz isn't for you, there's always version X," or, conversely, "if you want more crunch, then try version y." Seems to speak more to inclusion, albeit in a stratified way, I suppose.

Quote from: cranebump;847079I think it's a bit unfair to say that if you have trouble with or criticisms of one version if DnD it's not for you. The many and varied play styles and systems I've seen espoused and described on this site alone seem to say, "if having to track a bunch of kewl powerz isn't for you, there's always version X," or, conversely, "if you want more crunch, then try version y." Seems to speak more to inclusion, albeit in a stratified way, I suppose.

Yes you're right, I phrased the last comment incorrectly.
I should have said specifically 5E is not for you, rather than DnD in it's entirely is not for you. I did mean that, but somewhere in between my brain and keyboard, the general term made it 's way in there...  
It's Friday and I'm tired and should have read properly my response.

Still, my response in general still stands.  For people I play 5E with, no-one has problems keeping track of abilities.
It's one of the reasons I run it, it's so easy to run and play.

Quote from: GreyICE;847005So basically you're saying that levels are a metagame concept that lets the DM give you a gold star on your report card?  

I don't like that interpretation at all.

If you aren't accustomed to treating D&D as a game rather than some collaborative wish fulfillment storytelling exercise then no the concept wouldn't resonate with you.

Going up in level in the game is an indication of victory, not just something that happens automatically every X sessions. If you don't use XP and just level everyone up at "appropriate" times then you have left a lot of the game aspect out of play and thus the levels have less meaning. If the levels have less or NO real meaning to the player then the only solution is to keep piling on widgets for the character.

It is a huge difference in approach to play, and not everyone enjoys the game aspects anymore. Make of that what you will.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;847146If you aren't accustomed to treating D&D as a game rather than some collaborative wish fulfillment storytelling exercise then no the concept wouldn't resonate with you.

Going up in level in the game is an indication of victory, not just something that happens automatically every X sessions. If you don't use XP and just level everyone up at "appropriate" times then you have left a lot of the game aspect out of play and thus the levels have less meaning. If the levels have less or NO real meaning to the player then the only solution is to keep piling on widgets for the character.

It is a huge difference in approach to play, and not everyone enjoys the game aspects anymore. Make of that what you will.

I've never heard a better explanation of why I hate "everyone levels together" with the blazing heat of a quadrillion exploding universes before.  Well done.

In most D&D game I play in people level up at the same rate. That's because the majority of the time they're adventuring together and taking on the challenges as a collective unit. There are times where one player can't make a session and upon their request, their character is played by the DM or another player (which can result in their character death) or they can be Pokemon-balled but loose out on XP. Even when the latter is chosen, it rarely ends up in more than 1 level difference.

Its when a character dies and a new one is rolled up @ 1st level in a party of 6th level plus where the disparity is really seen. The rare instances where the DM is like that, I just opt to get into the next campaign because of the inability for my character to contribute on any sort of basis AND because the idea that they'll jump a level every other battle when zero has been done on their part is jarring and abrasive.

The rates of XP needed to level were evened out in 3e. It had a real effect. Then later there was X party sessions leveling. And then there was the level per session method, which when I thought I couldn't hate the 3e/PF experience more, along comes the high speed rail of bookkeeping suck.

Building backwards made sense in that environment, but then so did quitting RPGs for a leisurely social game of contract bridge for one's eternal souls...

I do XP per battle/encounter/instance

Quote from: danskmacabre;847084For people I play 5E with, no-one has problems keeping track of abilities.
It's one of the reasons I run it, it's so easy to run and play.

My group finds it a bit of a pain, but that's mainly a usability issue. You have to write everything down longhand in a coherent way, and update it frequently. And we don't play often enough, and my players aren't studious enough of rules in general, to remember everything in our heads. I'm starting a new 5E campaign as a player next week, and I'll probably spend a couple hours in preparation typing out and printing a cheat sheet explaining all abilities, skills, and spells my character has access to.

I know a lot of RPGers hate this sort of thing, but I'd like to see cards with spells and character abilities on them. It's so much easier to grab a card out of a deck and refer to it when needed then to look everything up in a big hardcover book and copying onto paper.

Not gonna lie. I miss the uneven XP tracks of Ye Olde Schoole.

Which brings up another thought I hadn't considered...

Remember in 2e when they Complete Splats landed, they had those lists of XP bonuses that were specific to each class? I remember a lot of people in the 3e era onward griping about those... but I remember a lot of my players loving the shit out of those because it made them *do* things actively in our games for the pure greedy sake of earning experience... and it fit within their character's class motifs.

So the Thieves were always sneaking around, trying to figure out ways to get gold (gold gained through thievery was XP!) Fighters were always trying to kill shit in single-combat. Mages were always trying to concoct their own spells. Clerics are always creating their own rites and ceremonies. And it created in-game conflicts that help drive the game.

It required a little extra book-keeping but... wow... am I looking at that with Rosy-colored glasses? I remember my players always being excited about it. Am I just tripping out?