Quote from: Bren;847588I don't think this says what you meant to say.

Duh! Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up.

What I was getting at with my previous post was that you might be better off with a different approach tot eh structure of levels.

D&D with its 1-20 kind of a model might be better off with a 1-5 structure where each jump step was much more fundamental a change
So rather than kill some goblins get a bit better , kill some orcs get a bit better etc etc you might have guys fighting goblins, guys fighting ogres, guys fighting giants, guys fighting dragons, guys taking on the godly powers of the universe.

The reason why this isn't popular is the need for those little gold stars for participation.

An alternate would be making level more like a non level system to whit lots of small incremental steps with a range of stuff to select and for the big powers or the feats or whatever you need to save up for a few levels before they hit. This gives you the gold star mechanism but also ties in game progression to a more realistic clock.

In our actual D&D games we basically never bothered with experience or leveling at all. I have played games lasting over a year real time in which no one got any xp no one leveled up and this was the norm for us. It didn't matter because we were they to play the characters in that game we didn't need gold stars for participation and we didn't care about our powerz or what not we just wanted to play these characters.

So I would still say that a game with dead levels is probably poor design, and its not because I an "whining little girl" or "feel entitled" but just because I am asking what the point of the level mechanic is and what is it trying to simulate in the game world.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;847561I can absolutely understand not liking that. If people don't enjoy it, I have no issue. I think where I get annoyed is this insistence I sometimes see where people either expect you to share their exasperation or agree with them that it is just objectively bad for a game to do that. I like that fighters don't get a lot of buttons. I also like the old way of having mages progress slowly so there is a time investment trade off. Not for everyone but those are aspects of the game I see as a feature not a bug.

You know, I have never, ever, EVER in 42 years of this fucking insane hobby seen somebody get dick-bent because somebody's magic user got a spell and all their fighter got was hit points.

Then again, we had people who loved playing OD&D fighters, and others who loved playing magic users, and others who loved playing clerics, and others who loved playing thieves.

You'd almost think different people like different things.

There are so many fucking different games out there, and so many different iterations of games, that if somebody can't find a game they like they aren't trying hard enough.

Like you, I am fucking sick of people pulling the "I don't like this so it is OBJECTIVELY WRONG!" bullshit.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847629You know, I have never, ever, EVER in 42 years of this fucking insane hobby seen somebody get dick-bent because somebody's magic user got a spell and all their fighter got was hit points.

You missed someone claiming that getting spells or getting better at thieving or getting new animal forms was also "dead levelling".

I've only really seen the dead level complaint laid on 3.x edition. In 2e AD&D, 4e, Pathfinder, and 5e the majority of the levels you  either get a new feature or a previous feature received a bonus. In 3.x the bonus to attack was marginalized as was gaining more HP.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847629You know, I have never, ever, EVER in 42 years of this fucking insane hobby seen somebody get dick-bent because somebody's magic user got a spell and all their fighter got was hit points.

Not in actual play. But on forums, it's one of the most popular hobby-horses of the theory-wank crowd. The idea of simpler martial classes and more complex spell-casting classes drives them absolutely bonkers.

Quote from: jibbajibba;847625So I would still say that a game with dead levels is probably poor design, and its not because I an "whining little girl" or "feel entitled" but just because I am asking what the point of the level mechanic is and what is it trying to simulate in the game world.

They are not technically dead though. There is usually an increase in HP, which isn't nothing. I think here it is just a matter of point of view on granularity and progression. While I like the levels in D&D (dead and all) I tend to prefer sticking to 1-6 "levels" in my own game design. However, one thing I've discovered in doing that: there are a lot of people that genuinely prefer a larger scale, even if that means spreading the stuff out more. Listening to the large number of people who say they want something in the game, isn't bad design in my view.

In terms of what it actually achieves. I think one is the perception of granularity which is important. Another thing is adds is consequence of choice and difference between characters. One class you get goodies every level and bunch of moviing parts, another class your goodies are more spread out. This creates a palpable difference between a fighter and a mage, or even a thief and a fighter. We could spend all day dissecting what it represents in the game world. It is an abstraction of personal growth and increasing skill. I don't see how it would be more true to reality to have you get something every level, versus every other level or every three levels. I guess when one class only gets HP, it just means they got a bit tougher from the experience and still have a ways to go before they refine some of their other abilities. To me that isn't terribly disconnected from reality, though it is still clearly an abstraction. If you want something that simulates personal growth with more of a 1-1 relationship between what your doing and what skills are going up, D&D isn't the game. That's never been how D&D approached advancement. There are other systems that have skills grow through actual use.

Quote from: Haffrung;847664The idea of simpler martial classes and more complex spell-casting classes drives them absolutely bonkers.

  The objection is if that's an absolute rule, since it seems to unnecessarily link two distinct things--character concept and mechanical complexity. It also seems to be more common among the "D&D as toolkit/fantasy simulator" side as opposed to the "D&D as game/sui generis/Holy Writ" side that is dominant here.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847629You know, I have never, ever, EVER in 42 years of this fucking insane hobby seen somebody get dick-bent because somebody's magic user got a spell and all their fighter got was hit points.

Then again, we had people who loved playing OD&D fighters, and others who loved playing magic users, and others who loved playing clerics, and others who loved playing thieves.

You'd almost think different people like different things.

There are so many fucking different games out there, and so many different iterations of games, that if somebody can't find a game they like they aren't trying hard enough.

Like you, I am fucking sick of people pulling the "I don't like this so it is OBJECTIVELY WRONG!" bullshit.

I love extreme comments like this.  Really I do.  Makes people seem so rational.

I don't think anyone claimed that no one ever liked playing OD&D.  I've seen people say that game design decided to add stuff to non-Magic/special classes.  I've seen people say that they like to get some goodies.  I've seen people say that they don't think HP should be the only measuring stick by which progress should be seen.

So the only thing I can see is that this poster wants to project his dislike, so he can rail at us young whippersnappers again.

As for people never wanting non-Magic Users to having goodies of their own, if you actually played something other than OD&D, you'd have seen evidence of this:  Weapon Specializations, Proficiencies, the Ranger's Favoured Foe and Dual Wielding technique, the Fighter's bonus attacks against enemies of 1HD or less all these were some (not all) of the goodies that the various designers and developers of Dungeons and Dragons have add to the game over the years to the Non-Magic Using Class to give them something to look forward to, other than another roll of the D10/D8 and seeing if your Saving Throws changed or not.

Someone must have mentioned something about wanting 'bennies', cuz there are some of them.

And anecdotally, personally, I've been at AD&D tables in which players made small comments, nothing as extreme as OG wants, but little shots at the game.  Not to mention various attempts at house rules.

The evidence is there.  If you really want to look.  But, then that's not as fun as waving your 'experience' around as an e-peen, is it?

Quote from: jibbajibba;847625I am asking what the point of the level mechanic is and what is it trying to simulate in the game world.

The point of the "level mechanic" is that a Hero in CHAINMAIL fights as four men and a Superhero fights as eight men, and Gary filled in the gaps.

And it's not trying to simulate a FUCKING THING in the game world.  It is a GAME and was written as a GAME, and Gary did it that way to make the GAME play a certain way.

It simulates fuckall, has always simulated fuckall, and will always simulate fuckall.

Fortunately for people who don't like that, there are many, many games that don't work that way.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;847412So at level one we are fledgling adventurers, going into holes in the ground to beat up monsters. As the game progresses, we continue to go into holes to beat up monsters. At high level we go down holes and continue to beat up monsters. They are much tougher monsters, and we have the option to bash them with the old schmababicker that we had at level one, or the shiny new bramasgonger that we just got at level 13! Wow!  What evolution!  What a dynamic shift in the play experience. Where once we only had a handful of options, now we have 47 different ways to do the exact same thing!

Doing the same thing for 20 levels even if you have a million different ways to do it doesn't seem like meaningful change to me. Not compared to the brilliance of a 41 year old design that incorporated small scale tactical skirmishing that morphed into a complex game of strategy and diplomacy in the endgame.

Ah, now we are considering D&D as an activity where the point is the in-universe character growth.  The point is not to consider D&D as a game, but instead as something where your character's personal growth in influence and power within the game world is its own reward.

Which... is exactly the opposite of what you said before:

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.

As I suspected, you're one of those drooling ass-monkeys whose only real goal in life is to argue, yell, and belittle people.  You see no problem in going total 180 in order to "win" the argument.  

Fucking hate little shits like you.  I suppose your parents never loved you or all that jazz, but I can't really care.

After seeing the many responses, and different schools of thought in this thread, it's made me decide 5th edition did it right. You always get something every level...even if it's a very small "something" like an extra use of an ability per day.

I use to start my PC's off at Level 3 back in the 3.0 days, because the first levels sucked so much and I heard an apocryphal tale somewhere about how it was recommended if your PC's weren't farm folk just starting their career.

5th edition is the first iteration of Dungeons and Dragons where I've started PC's at level 1 and have loved it, and they've enjoyed it to. You can get to level 2 in about one session, and there's an immediate, if small, boost in ability and power.

Quote from: GreyICE;847747Ah, now we are considering D&D as an activity where the point is the in-universe character growth.  The point is not to consider D&D as a game, but instead as something where your character's personal growth in influence and power within the game world is its own reward.

Is the point of Monopoly to build houses & hotels? Not really. Such property improvements increase rental income allowing you a greater chance of winning the game. Does the fact that you are partaking of in-universe growth suddenly mean Monopoly ceases to be a game?

Likewise building a stronghold, attracting followers, and gaining higher positions in the game world is much like building houses & hotels. It is a part of the game, but not the reason for it.

Quote from: GreyICE;847747As I suspected, you're one of those drooling ass-monkeys whose only real goal in life is to argue, yell, and belittle people.  You see no problem in going total 180 in order to "win" the argument.  

Fucking hate little shits like you.  I suppose your parents never loved you or all that jazz, but I can't really care.

You belittle yourself. The final refuge of the terminally incorrect is to start name calling. I have no idea who pissed in your Cheerios, but if you want to start a little psychoanalysis, then I suggest you begin with yourself.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847706The point of the "level mechanic" is that a Hero in CHAINMAIL fights as four men and a Superhero fights as eight men, and Gary filled in the gaps.

And it's not trying to simulate a FUCKING THING in the game world.  It is a GAME and was written as a GAME, and Gary did it that way to make the GAME play a certain way.

It simulates fuckall, has always simulated fuckall, and will always simulate fuckall.

Fortunately for people who don't like that, there are many, many games that don't work that way.

So its trying to simulates that heroes have the impact in a battle of 4 men and superheroes 8.....

If you wish you could indeed put it that way.