I loved levels when I was around 14. I thought they were a brilliant form of experience. And of course let you power game your pants off - Which I loved as a kid. Although, I got well tired of it towards the end.

TBH WFRP had put the nail in the coffin for me (1e) regarding D&D and old OSR. And especially gaming during the 90s, I thought they were very clumsy and a somewhat binary way of reflecting character experience. And thus leaving the characters mechanically very samey. I would refuse to play in any game that had any form of leveling system.

Come coming back full circle just a couple of years back, and I started to miss the old style of fantasy RPing (or back to basics). I was sick of all the whizz bang of newer and supposedly better mechanics. I found myself spending more time fiddling than actual RPing. And GMing was a lot more to take onboard.

Anyway, some of the best games I've played over the years have been at the lower levels of gaming to my recollection. Maybe between 2 - 8. Beyond that (and add a load of magic items into the equation) I think the game starts to get a bit power heavy. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, if you like it, but I'm into low fantasy and very few magic items.

Anyway, I like the way levels make the game very transparent so it's a lot easier to balance. I also actually like the fact that they make heroes of normal men (or women). I think they reflect, for me anyway, a good gritty fantasy novel in terms of power level. Yeah, you can punch a couple of thugs out at 3rd level but try and take on Waylander by yourself and you'll be needing a grave, as it should be!

While I used to think they were a bit cookie cutter too, I'm now way more interested in making characters and NPCs different through RPing as opposed to adding and subtracting different mechanical nick nacks.

For really good implementations of levels (in my opinion) are Sin Nominees games and Beyond the Wall. In BtW, your character is considered a major bod in the land at level 5. And at 10 they'd be considered some kind of ruler. But when they reach level 10 thay are asumed to retire.

Of course, I still like other modern games too. Or old stuff like Open Quest or WFRP.

Thoughts?

Ta!

R.

As an old Earthdawn player I really like level systems that break down into predictable tiers which can be integrated as part of the campaign setting.  D&D 4e did this with a very heavy hand (although I still loved it) whereas D&D 5e feels like it hit the sweet spot where you can really feel the difference between tiers.

I've never really liked Levels and used to rail against them. Back in the Wayback I went on a long quest for 'realism' (Phoenix Command!) and was, predictably, quite disappointed. Nowadays I'm much more accepting of the abstract qualities of D&D... to where I shun adding later additions like skills/feats/etc. The reasons I accept classes are simplicity/clarity... and aesthetics of a certain flavor of game. I don't want it cluttered up with tactical minutia.

I wouldn't want to game in a system with classes and levels all the time, but neither would I want to use another approach all the time, either.  A skills-based game or something power structured like Fantasy Hero scratches a different itch than class/levels do.  Admittedly, I can go for a long streak in one or the other, but eventually I want a break.

Most of the roleplaying games I enjoy don't use character levels as markers of advancement or improvement, and in the couple of games which do use levels, they're not as significant or intrusive as, say, 3e D&D.

So I suppose, based on my playing habits, I'm 'meh?' toward levels.

Quote from: KingCheops;984967As an old Earthdawn player I really like level systems that break down into predictable tiers which can be integrated as part of the campaign setting.  D&D 4e did this with a very heavy hand (although I still loved it) whereas D&D 5e feels like it hit the sweet spot where you can really feel the difference between tiers.

I didn't ever play 4e, to be honest. But I hear what you're saying... There's definitely a sweet spot to be had with Levels. It's a bit like Goldilocks... In the middle is fine but beyond that can feel off to me, anyway.

Quote from: Simlasa;984976I've never really liked Levels and used to rail against them. Back in the Wayback I went on a long quest for 'realism' (Phoenix Command!) and was, predictably, quite disappointed. Nowadays I'm much more accepting of the abstract qualities of D&D... to where I shun adding later additions like skills/feats/etc. The reasons I accept classes are simplicity/clarity... and aesthetics of a certain flavor of game. I don't want it cluttered up with tactical minutia.

I was the same I hated them for years... As you've said, I think they work on an abstract level (no pun inteneded). I'm not keen on the modern doodads either. I'm fine with a simple abstract skill system that uses the attributes but nothing too rigid or complex at all.

I'm also quite liking of classes now as well. Again not for realism but just for the flavor. Plus, it can give a party a decent balance which is cool. I've noticed that they are good for people who are perhaps new or inexperienced to RPGs. It gives them that wow factor -  'I want to play one of those!'. Which is always good...

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;984980I wouldn't want to game in a system with classes and levels all the time, but neither would I want to use another approach all the time, either.  A skills-based game or something power structured like Fantasy Hero scratches a different itch than class/levels do.  Admittedly, I can go for a long streak in one or the other, but eventually I want a break.

Yeah, I'd be the same as well. Levels definitely suit certain games more than others... It depends on what you're after for that particular game.

They definitely scratch different itches.  Leveling provides that nice dopamine boost.  Don't get quite as excited about getting Karma in Shadowrun as when I get enough experience to advance a level.

Personally I don't  care for levels but it wouldn't stop me from playing a game that is otherwise good.

Quote from: KingCheops;985030They definitely scratch different itches.  Leveling provides that nice dopamine boost.  Don't get quite as excited about getting Karma in Shadowrun as when I get enough experience to advance a level.

Yeah, they do give you that instant hit. Oh cool! I've just got better. Whereas something like CoC you tend to feel the reward a lot less. Oh, my skills increased by a whopping 2% (same goes for RuneQuest).

Cool for a wizard as well - Bang! New spell. I always thought Thieves were poor though. The increments of the skills per level were far too tiny. I'm glad quite a few OSR games have addressed that tho'.

Quote from: Dumarest;985043Personally I don't  care for levels but it wouldn't stop me from playing a game that is otherwise good.

Oh aye... The game is as good as the GM and players. The System doesn't have to be 'the everything'.

Generally agree but I think I'm having issues thinking of a good game that actually has levels besides D&D. Ever since CoC they seemed unneccesary.

I do think they are a big part of the long term appeal of D&D though.

I am meh on levels, but players seem to love them.

Even when we played GURPS and HERO, the players wanted XP in chunks. AKA, we would play until the GM gave us 10 XP to spend and we'd "level up" our PCs.

I love levels & levelling up - except in 3e D&D style "build" games where you are supposed to choose tons of stuff and a bad choice will permanently cripple your PC. And 4e suffers from the "running to stay still" issue where the world seems to level around the PCs. But levelling in 0e-2e and 5e D&D is great fun.