SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

"Dead" Levels

Started by Orphan81, July 18, 2015, 06:00:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Exploderwizard

The dead level concept is tied directly to games that focus on what the PCs CAN do mechanically instead of what the PCs ARE doing in the campaign.

Part of this issue isn't strictly mechanically related. It has more to do with games that feature passive spoon-fed players who wait for a mission to come to them like a cow being milked instead of proactively taking action on behalf of their characters. Being herded from encounter to encounter, the players have little agency in the game world, and, as a consequence, they often don't even give so much as a single fuck about it.

What they DO have agency over is their build and mechanical gadgets, so that is where their care and concerns lie. The real game being played is one of "what do I get next?" Getting stuff is the one thing to be cared about because the supposed meat of the game (aka the adventure) offers no opportunities for control.
Quote from: JonWakeGamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than \'oh, neat, what\'s this do?\', the reaction is to decide if it\'s a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.

Quote from: Old Geezer;724252At some point it seems like D&D is going to disappear up its own ass.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.

Ravenswing

Quote from: Bren;842799Yeah pretty much this. I don't recall anyone caring about dead levels in OD&D or early AD&D. And people did not usually level on a weekly basis. It seems more a function of newer games with balanced encounters, adversaries whose skill and hits are tagged to party level, white room theorizing, with maybe just a tinge of player ennui in those people who are used to getting a new smart phone every 4-6 months with a new app every day and twice on Sundays.
Well said.

To a degree, I don't get to bitch too much about the syndrome (at least in tabletop, where with playing GURPS, there's a teensy potential incremental increase each session).  But I'll do it anyway: the object of the game is to have fun playing the game.  I could have great good fun roleplaying if my character never improved again.  This really was the case in LARPing, where I mentioned in a current thread that I'd reached the maximum the system allowed a full decade before I stopped playing the character ... and somehow managed to have fun anyway.

I've had a couple players, over the decades, whine to me about their rate of advancement.  My milder response was a cool "Step up your play, then."  The more extreme one was an invitation to find some other game more to his liking.
This was a cool site, until it became an echo chamber for whiners screeching about how the "Evul SJWs are TAKING OVAH!!!" every time any RPG book included a non-"traditional" NPC or concept, or their MAGA peeners got in a twist. You're in luck, drama queens: the Taliban is hiring.

Baulderstone

I ran a 3rd edition game for players that ranged from noob to casual. The constant leveling in that system became an aggravation to them. As non-ruleheads, they just wanted to play their characters, not have to comb through hundreds of feats and learn new class powers every other week.

The campaign just felt jarring to us all as well, with the characters abilities changing so rapidly it was hard to maintain any level of belief.

You have two main approaches to leveling. You have games like BRP where characters go up every week by a small amount. Then you have D&D leveling, where you go a number of weeks without anything, then get a level all at once. Both methods can work fine.

With D&D 3.x, they made two changes to the system. They added class powers, feats, and skills to the leveling process. That made it a far more dramatic process. On top of that, they spread up progression significantly. Either of these might have been okay, but taken together it meant you were basically playing a new build every few sessions, which was tiring to my players.

It reminded me a bit of playing Civilization on one of the faster speeds. I'd get a new technological advance, just start rolling out new units and using them, then suddenly the next advance would be along before I got to appreciate the last one.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;842903There is something to that--if there's no functional difference between a 13 and a 14, or a 14 and a 15, why maintain the difference? This is a non-issue in pre-3E versions of D&D, of course--ability checks as 'roll under on 1d20', and the various little bits in the AD&D tables, or mapping the bonuses to the bell curve in BECMI, make the 3-18 scale valuable. But in 3E and beyond, with the unified system and the purely linear curve, the 3-18 scale is more or less vestigial.

When I first read the Dragon articles leading up to the release of 3rd Edition, I had the impression that they would drop the 3-18 completely in other D20 games. I was surprised to see it in their first Star Wars game. Just moving to -5 to +5 as the actual stat, like in Ars Magica (also by Jonathan Tweet), seemed to make more sense.

The whole thing of figuring out your 3-18 score, then converting it to numbers that the system actually engaged with was a speed bump for every new player I taught the system.

GeekEclectic

Quote from: Orphan81;842752What's your experience? Dead Levels really just a perception I shouldn't bitch about? Dead Levels completely okay as getting more HP should be reward enough? Or Dead Levels suck and PC's should always get something, even if it's just a +1 to an existing power/ability of some kind, and not just an HP boost?
I think it mostly comes down to the rate of advancement.

If you expect to reach a new level every couple sessions, then dead levels aren't much of an issue. When I first got to play D&D 3e back in 2000, the guys I played with had AD&D experience, and their reaction to seeing how much XP we got in a session compared to how much we needed to level up led to them dubbing it "Dragonball D&D." And playing things by the book, we really did level up pretty fast.

That said, I still don't think dead levels are a good thing. If a level-up doesn't give you something significant, then I honestly wonder why you would have the character leveling up at that point at all. For more hit points? As for the "I win button" comment in post 2, I see a very large excluded middle. Yes, some abilities are going to(and should) directly boost a characters ability at their schtick and/or their damage output(which in the fighter's case is its schtick), but there are abilities that you can give characters that are both class-appropriate and which build the character more horizontally. Something significant, but not overpowering, and certainly not an "I win button."

If you expect level advancement to be pretty rare, as was the case in many older editions of D&D, then I think you should worry more about dead levels. Just because people played and enjoyed games that had both infrequent level ups and dead levels doesn't mean it was a good design decision. In this case, since leveling would be rare, it should really mean something. Otherwise, again, why is the level-up even happening? For rarer advancement, there should probably be a vertical and horizontal gain at every level. Or a vertical gain every level and a horizontal gain every other level.

If you absolutely can't avoid dead levels, though, which I admit might be the case if you want your game to fit firmly within the OSR(I'm a bit fuzzy on the rules and just how much tinkering is allowed before your game is deemed "not OSR" anymore), then at the very least you can do a little work to make the various classes equally dead. But personally I'd consider this option the last resort, only to be used if necessary to keep your OSR status.
"I despise weak men in positions of power, and that's 95% of game industry leadership." - Jessica Price
"Isnt that why RPGs companies are so woke in the first place?" - Godsmonkey
*insert Disaster Girl meme here* - Me

Moracai

Quote from: Ravenswing;842922I could have great good fun roleplaying if my character never improved again.

In a Shadowrun Game I played two characters at once. They were called Team ZeroKarma (one's streetname was Zero, the other one was Karma), and I refused to note down any Karma (Shadowrun equivalent of XP) on character sheets. I didn't feel like they had to improve mechanically.

Christopher Brady

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;842800This is something I never heard of until five years ago.  I don't know when it became a concern, but it certainly was not one 1972-1985.

Maybe not in your circles, but I've been hearing variations on the theme for a VERY long time, since about '84, although I wasn't playing D&D at the time (I started about 3-5 years later), I had friends who did and would talk about it round me.  Most of the time, though, I think people were happy if they level and got some sort of Magical Reward, new weapon, armour, accessory, they equated that with a level increase, when they didn't get one, and were playing like a Fighter and sometimes Ranger, there was a lot of grumbling (Always good natured in my experience, mind you) about how they got 'nothing' that level, even if they rolled max HP on the die.

And let's face, sometimes, when you roll a 1 on a D10 (as a Fighter type) it doesn't really feel like much of a gain.

One more thing, about HP not feeling like a gain, it might be because every one gets more HP per level, so it doesn't have the Special Snowflakeness that one gets when you choose a new spell, get a new Die or multiplier for your Backstab/Sneak Attack rolls.
"And now, my friends, a Dragon\'s toast!  To life\'s little blessings:  wars, plagues and all forms of evil.  Their presence keeps us alert --- and their absence makes us grateful." -T.A. Barron[/SIZE]

crkrueger

The concept and belief in "Dead Levels" are the result of viewing the progress of a character through the game as an isolated series of mechanics.

There are many ways to treat reward and a character who is more than numbers on a page has goals.  A level is only "Dead" if the player sees no value in the change.
 
Since the previous level, how much money has the character obtained?  Can they afford better armor, weapons or other gear?  
Have they made alliances that gives them access to the resources of the powers that be in their area?  
Has their reputation increased so they can reap the many benefits available in their setting?  
Did they acquire magic, which could give them abilities beyond any level reward?

If your answer to that is "Yeah all that is great, but mechanically I'm exactly the same except a few HPs." then then issue isn't the system, it's your GM or your perception.
Even the the "cutting edge" storygamers for all their talk of narrative, plot, and drama are fucking obsessed with the god damned rules they use. - Estar

Yes, Sean Connery\'s thumb does indeed do megadamage. - Spinachcat

Isuldur is a badass because he stopped Sauron with a broken sword, but Iluvatar is the badass because he stopped Sauron with a hobbit. -Malleus Arianorum

"Tangency Edition" D&D would have no classes or races, but 17 genders to choose from. -TristramEvans

Gronan of Simmerya

Quote from: slayride35;842885Dead levels are not good game design.

Horseshit.

You may not like them, but I think they work just fine.

Your opinion is not objective truth.  Mine, of course, is.
You should go to GaryCon.  Period.

The rules can\'t cure stupid, and the rules can\'t cure asshole.

Christopher Brady

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;842960Horseshit.

You may not like them, but I think they work just fine.

Your opinion is not objective truth.  Mine, of course, is.

Of course it is!  All HAIL GRONAN!  :D
"And now, my friends, a Dragon\'s toast!  To life\'s little blessings:  wars, plagues and all forms of evil.  Their presence keeps us alert --- and their absence makes us grateful." -T.A. Barron[/SIZE]

Gronan of Simmerya

Quote from: Christopher Brady;842966Of course it is!  All HAIL GRONAN!  :D

NOW you get it!

:D
You should go to GaryCon.  Period.

The rules can\'t cure stupid, and the rules can\'t cure asshole.

Matt

Never heard of a dead level before. Sounds like a problem with player expectations rather than the game.

Gronan of Simmerya

Quote from: Matt;842972Never heard of a dead level before. Sounds like a problem with player expectations rather than the game.

Ding!  Winner.
You should go to GaryCon.  Period.

The rules can\'t cure stupid, and the rules can\'t cure asshole.

Christopher Brady

Quote from: Matt;842972Never heard of a dead level before. Sounds like a problem with player expectations rather than the game.

It's a shift among players in general, WoTC noted it during the 2e to 3.x days, actually.  They claimed according to one of the 4e preview books that the 3.x Monk was one of the best designed classes in terms of giving players goodies.  There was always something to look forward to, after hit points or BAB.  (They did acknowledge that most of the 'goodies' were kinda useless in a game, however.)

Back in the 70's and early 80's, people accepted it because no one thought otherwise, when games decided to give things at a regular interval, that's when players realized that they don't have to accept the status quo.

Is it right?  Is it wrong?  I dunno, and frankly, it's not up to me to decide or even care.  I just want to roll the dice and have fun make-believe adventure.
"And now, my friends, a Dragon\'s toast!  To life\'s little blessings:  wars, plagues and all forms of evil.  Their presence keeps us alert --- and their absence makes us grateful." -T.A. Barron[/SIZE]

Gronan of Simmerya

It's right if you like it and wrong if you don't.
You should go to GaryCon.  Period.

The rules can\'t cure stupid, and the rules can\'t cure asshole.

RandallS

Quote from: GeekEclectic;842936If you absolutely can't avoid dead levels, though, which I admit might be the case if you want your game to fit firmly within the OSR(I'm a bit fuzzy on the rules and just how much tinkering is allowed before your game is deemed "not OSR" anymore), then at the very least you can do a little work to make the various classes equally dead. But personally I'd consider this option the last resort, only to be used if necessary to keep your OSR status.

The problem for OSR games is that to give every class some new ability every level, for many classes you either have to create a bunch of new abilities that are something that only someone with that ability could have any chance of success with or you have to take abilities that realistically anyone should be able to try with some chance of success and declare them impossible unless you have the special ability. Both are against the sensibilities of most players and GMs interested in OSR style games. Fortunately, most people interested in OSR games don't seem to notice, let alone care about dead levels.
Randall
Rules Light RPGs: Home of Microlite20 and Other Rules-Lite Tabletop RPGs