The great thing about them is that you can choose where along the level chain you want to begin, where you want to spend most of your time and when you want to end.

I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.

What I like about non level based systems is you can begin anywhere and end when you like. Threats and rewards aren't based on metagaming, they're based on the fact that a four ton fire breathing lizard probably isn't something you want to boogey with unless you've got a deck of aces up a fairly voluminous sleeve.

What do levels even mean, the whole concept is an immersion breaker. Individual skills now, that makes sense.

Quote from: The Traveller;642721What I like about non level based systems is you can begin anywhere and end when you like.

Indeed. You can generally choose where you want to start, spend your time, and finish.

QuoteWhat do levels even mean, the whole concept is an immersion breaker. Individual skills now, that makes sense.

Yeah, thanks for that.

Quote from: One Horse Town;642719The great thing about them is that you can choose where along the level chain you want to begin, where you want to spend most of your time and when you want to end.

I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.

I like chocolate...

Quote from: The Traveller;642721What I like about non level based systems is you can begin anywhere and end when you like. Threats and rewards aren't based on metagaming, they're based on the fact that a four ton fire breathing lizard probably isn't something you want to boogey with unless you've got a deck of aces up a fairly voluminous sleeve.

What do levels even mean, the whole concept is an immersion breaker. Individual skills now, that makes sense.

I like peanut butter...

I like chocolate and peanut butter together.

That being said, OHT is absolutely correct:  level-based systems very useful in assessing relative power levels for both PC/NPCs and monsters (hit dice being a fair and rough equivalency to PC/NPC level).

I think OHT is correct: Class/Levels offer some very real benefits, especially to novice players and DM's.

• Clear goals and rewards for play.
• Easy to judge relative power of PC's and monsters.
• Reducing cognitive load (i.e. fewer choices) — you get what the class offers at that level. (Research on why this is valuable.)
• Easier to balance than skill systems.
• (wrt OSR products) Known and tested starting point makes development simpler (as a lot of decisions have already been made).
• Campaign color is easily implemented with classes. (See Arcana Evolved.)

That said, I find class-level systems incredibly stultifying. Seriously, they cause mental cramps each time I see people worrying about how to represent their exact character within the confines of a rigid system:

"I want a wizard with armor and a sword, like Gandalf." "I want a fighter who can sneak." "I want a trap-finding character who is aces at combat."

Backgrounds, themes, all that — they're attempts to evade restrictions that are fundamental to the mechanics. Nice, within their scope, but evidence that the mechanics are constrained — by deliberate design.

In other words, what makes them great for novices, is what makes them bad for me.

YMMV. IME. (PDBM.)

Level-based systems are nice for a game with a broad scale (from novice to demigod or what have you) and you want it all in one campaign. But if you build a level-based game, there may be unrelated decisions and compromises you'll have to make down the road. And if you don't want that degree of progression or breadth of scale it may be a poor trade-off. I wouldn't want a level-based Unknown Armies for example.

In a larger sense, one of the biggest problems among RPG fandom (and, it must be said, all fandoms) is the prevalence of One True Wayism: "My preferences are objectively the best for everyone."

Well, hooey! Simply, provably untrue. (Unless I'm saying it. Because, you know, I'm awesome.)

In my experience, any game designer (or any designer, engineer, or artist, period) who can't explain the drawbacks of his own choices, and the benefits other choices might offer, doesn't understand his own work well enough to produce something great. (Unless it's wholly by accident, like Kevin Siembieda or George Lucas.)

That goes for classes/levels, as well. If you can't articulate or don't know the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, your body of knowledge is lacking. (One of the reasons Bloody Stupid Johnson's thread is so valuable, IMHO.)

Just to muddy the waters some more there are also hybrid approaches which use both level and skills. Bushido is an example of that (it's the first one that comes to mind because I just finished running a long campaign of it).

Players pick a class (Magician, thief, warrior, martial artists, etc.) which gives them broad capabilities within the setting. Magicians get the 'basic knowledge spells,' Warriors get a boost to skills like horsemanship and brawling as well as greater access to weapon skills. The player then personalizes the character by developing skills which interest it. A magician may choose to study water and fire magic but might also choose to learn how to handle a bo staff or even a sword. The warrior decides he wants to learn archery and spears, but makes time to also study Chinese Classics so he can be eloquent at court.

When the character levels up he gets an automatic boost to the skills which are favored by his class. Mages automatically get a little better at magic, warriors get a little better at fighting. However the characters can still pursue the skills which don't neatly fit into their class they just don't increase as quickly.

Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;642767Just to muddy the waters some more there are also hybrid approaches which use both level and skills.

It's sadly typical that everyone reacts to levels as if the person is only speaking about D&D levels. There are other approaches that carry little of the baggage that D&D does.

Quote from: gleichman;642777It's sadly typical that everyone reacts to levels as if the person is only speaking about D&D levels. There are other approaches that carry little of the baggage that D&D does.

Not sure if what I said was sadly typical. Just pointing out there is a middle ground between the levels and skill-based systems. I've played and run a lot of different systems as a gamer and I think it mostly comes down to 'select the one that will work the best in this instance.'

Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;642784Not sure if what I said was sadly typical.

No, not yours. You did very well.

It's the posts before you that seem to think D&D is the only game out there with Levels (or that any game with Levels must have the problems D&D has).

Quote from: One Horse Town;642719The great thing about them is that you can choose where along the level chain you want to begin, where you want to spend most of your time and when you want to end.

I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.

In my experience, level-based systems (following D&D) tend to center character creation only on making 1st level characters.  Making higher level characters is often unsupported or very cumbersome to support - i.e. you have to create a 1st level character and then go through the process of leveling them up one level at a time, which makes the creation process long and cumbersome.  

Point-bought skill-based systems tend to be much easier to make more powerful starting characters, although not always.  You just give the players more points.  It still takes a little longer, but often not much.  

There are things to like about level-based system, but "choose where you start" isn't an advantage over the common alternative.

Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;642767Just to muddy the waters some more there are also hybrid approaches which use both level and skills. Bushido is an example of that (it's the first one that comes to mind because I just finished running a long campaign of it).

An interesting and informative post.

It's sadly typical of internet comment sections that some posters can't contribute like you did, offering information and insight, instead of mere complaints about everyone else in the thread.

Kudos for rising above.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732I think OHT is correct: Class/Levels offer some very real benefits, especially to novice players and DM's. [...]

That said, I find class-level systems incredibly stultifying. Seriously, they cause mental cramps each time I see people worrying about how to represent their exact character within the confines of a rigid system:

"I want a wizard with armor and a sword, like Gandalf." "I want a fighter who can sneak." "I want a trap-finding character who is aces at combat."

I want a wizard who can fast-draw a revolver like Avatar the Great.

JG

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642789An interesting and informative post.

It's sadly typical of internet comment sections that some posters can't contribute like you did, offering information and insight, instead of mere complaints about everyone else in the thread.

Kudos for rising above.

Wait... didn't you just explain oh how experienced you are and that everyone who might like "level" is surely newb? Because you did.

Anyway you mix class and level. In fact, you can have classes without levels or levels without classes.

You can have levels a priori where you get advancement options when you hit a level, or levels a posteriori where you gain a level after fulfilling certain advancement options.