TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: Orphan81 on July 18, 2015, 06:00:36 PM

Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Orphan81 on July 18, 2015, 06:00:36 PM
My First introduction to Roleplaying was Werewolf: The Apocalypse 1st edition way back in 93 when I was a wee lad of 11...

I didn't really get to play Dungeons and Dragons until 96 when a friend started running it. One of the things at the time that always bugged me, was how I seemed to have more "Freedom" to advance how I wanted in a point buy system, versus a Level system..

I ended up digging 3rd edition when it came out, however, and running a few campaigns of it. Eventually though, the same problem I had seen in 2nd edition, cropped up in 3rd edition (And to a lesser extent 3.5)...

Dead Levels...

The Level where pretty much nothing on your character sheet changes except for Hitpoints, and if you're lucky maybe a save..

I hated (And still tend to dislike) Dead Levels, even as a GM who rarely plays these days.  Of course one man's Dead Level is another man's (or woman's for that matter) balance of play, and enjoyment of old school ascetics.

I love 5th edition, and have ran it a great deal, as it mostly seems to do away with my issue of PC's not really getting anything for leveling up beyond some extra hit points.

All that being said, however, I wanted to get some opinions of others when it comes to leveling. It's been my experience with many of the OSR games, they tend to vary a great deal in terms of what PC's get for leveling up.

Many OSR games seem to truncate the leveling down to 10 levels rather than the 20 in standard D&D...

I'm developing my own OSR based game now (I've done some freelancing for Savage Worlds, but this particular forum showed me how awesome OSR systems can actually be..), it's not fantasy based game... But I do worry about striking a balance between my loathing of Deadlevels and making characters far to powerful by giving them tons of stuff every level.

I'm on the fence, however, to a small extent. I have truncated levels as well, but I still wonder if giving PC's something cool, even minor, every level is too much.

What'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?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Doom on July 18, 2015, 07:07:51 PM
Dead Levels were more of an issue when it took dozens of hours of play to get a level. Now that levels come every other session or so, I don't see as much of a problem.

On 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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Libramarian on July 18, 2015, 07:35:03 PM
If more HP doesn't feel like a tangible increase in power then encounters are balanced too rigidly, with not enough player choice in what they take on.

More HP should make the players feel like "alright! now we can go back and fuck up that dragon we ran away from earlier!" or at least "hey! we're less likely to die before we cross the great steppes now!"

If more HP simply means the next encounter on the railroad will do slightly more damage, then you get the phenomenon of "dead" levels.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Spinachcat on July 18, 2015, 07:55:26 PM
Dead levels is a bad design and it was nuked by almost ever D20 game very quickly for good reason. Nobody likes them.

In OD&D - 2e (and clones), the dead level concern was rare. Spellcasters always got new spells with levels, but depending on the level vs. class there were levels they did or did not get THAC0 or Save changes. Thieves got more % chances. But certainly this was more of an issue for Fighters who could gain levels and only get HP.

This has been somewhat rectified in some retroclones, especially those less focused on being a direct clone. For me, OSRIC is the least interesting clone, but its importance is that its the most direct clone to AD&D for those who wish to publish AD&D products. It must always be remembered the goal of OSRIC was not to play OSRIC, but play AD&D with new stuff published under the OSRIC banner. I didn't fully understand that when OSRIC was first launched.

Of course, there's Gamma World where you didn't even get HPs for leveling! All you got was a random +1 ability score bonus or maybe a +1 melee bonus.

I don't see the need for 20 levels. High level play is rare and D&D breaks at high level (quadratic wizard vs. linear fighter) so keeping an OSR game to 10 levels works fine.


Quote from: Orphan81;842752My First introduction to Roleplaying was Werewolf: The Apocalypse 1st edition way back in 93 when I was a wee lad of 11...

Awesome! How did you discover Werewolf?


Quote from: Orphan81;842752But I do worry about striking a balance between my loathing of Deadlevels and making characters far to powerful by giving them tons of stuff every level.

Welcome to design balance hell. :)

My suggestion is find the dead levels in your design and review the entire class to see if something can be moved there. Perhaps the class is too front loaded or maybe they wait too long for something cool.

My focus is leveling should enhance the character in a meaningful way. A 4th level character should be better than a 3rd and less than a 5th, but not wildly so. It should be meaningful improvement, but incremental change.

Good luck! Love to hear more about your OSR project!
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bren on July 18, 2015, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: Libramarian;842766If more HP doesn't feel like a tangible increase in power then encounters are balanced too rigidly, with not enough player choice in what they take on.

More HP should make the players feel like "alright! now we can go back and fuck up that dragon we ran away from earlier!" or at least "hey! we're less likely to die before we cross the great steppes now!"

If more HP simply means the next encounter on the railroad will do slightly more damage, then you get the phenomenon of "dead" levels.
Yeah 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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 18, 2015, 11:47:38 PM
This 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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 18, 2015, 11:48:39 PM
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.

Very good, sir.  I simply would have said "Waa waa waa fucking waa," but your way is far more eloquent.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bren on July 19, 2015, 12:03:56 AM
Quote from: Old Geezer;842801Very good, sir.  I simply would have said "Waa waa waa fucking waa," but your way is far more eloquent.
Thanks OG. The next round is on you, at least until the name change goes through. ;)
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 19, 2015, 12:07:06 AM
Quote from: Bren;842807Thanks OG. The next round is on you, at least until the name change goes through. ;)

Come to GaryCon and I'll make good on that!
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Votan on July 19, 2015, 12:10:14 AM
Quote from: Old Geezer;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.

I seem to recall living long enough to level to be sufficiently rare that the bragging rights were worth it, alone.  But I grew up just north of Minnesota, so the culture might have been more lethal than the coastal stuff.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Moracai on July 19, 2015, 02:17:06 AM
If I should attempt doing an OSR game, I'd be tempted to make all the levels equally dead. No kewl powarz for anyone!
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Exploderwizard on July 19, 2015, 10:30:04 AM
The entire concept of "dead" levels is fucking rubbish invented by attention deficit wankers that don't bother roleplaying and only care about new and different buttons to mash on their character console.

Back in my day leveling was something that just happened as you played, not the reason for playing in the first place.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: slayride35 on July 19, 2015, 10:43:28 AM
Dead levels are not good game design. One of the best things Pathfinder did was add in more options at every level expanding on 3.x design.

In Earthdawn Third Edition design we changed the way talents were set up. Each Discipline had a core talent and instead of a secondary talent chosen for the player as in 1e, 2e, EDC, we set up a pool of talents that had more options, this prevented the dead level problem that some Disciplines had in earlier editions where there were two talents that some players did not enjoy being forced to rank up at least one of them to advance to the next Circle.

Savage Worlds is well designed because regardless of what you choose, the options are pretty much +2 skill points, +1 attribute point, or +1 edge. Characters go up in power, but gradually every 5-10 XPs. Sure, the game doesn't have levels (Unless you count the five ranks as the levels of the game, Novice, Seasoned, Veteran, Heroic, Legendary), but there are no dead advancement points.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Omega on July 19, 2015, 12:25:15 PM
Think the whinning about "dead levels" is bad? Over on BGG/RPGG a couple of months ago there was a thread complaining about the "dead levels" in... stat bonuses in D&D and how this needed to be "fixed". Jesus, and various other deities and demigods, wept.

Then there was someone bitching about ability score improvement or an extra attack "not really being anything." and so on and so on ad nausium.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Armchair Gamer on July 19, 2015, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: Omega;842899Think the whinning about "dead levels" is bad? Over on BGG/RPGG a couple of months ago there was a thread complaining about the "dead levels" in... stat bonuses in D&D and how this needed to be "fixed". Jesus, and various other deities and demigods, wept.

   There 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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Exploderwizard on July 19, 2015, 01:27:12 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Ravenswing on July 19, 2015, 02:15:38 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Baulderstone on July 19, 2015, 03:16:16 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GeekEclectic on July 19, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Moracai on July 19, 2015, 03:36:21 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on July 19, 2015, 03:46:51 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: crkrueger on July 19, 2015, 04:18:13 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 19, 2015, 05:04:56 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on July 19, 2015, 05:13:16 PM
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
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 19, 2015, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;842966Of course it is!  All HAIL GRONAN!  :D

NOW you get it!

:D
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Matt on July 19, 2015, 05:33:14 PM
Never heard of a dead level before. Sounds like a problem with player expectations rather than the game.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 19, 2015, 06:10:28 PM
Quote from: Matt;842972Never heard of a dead level before. Sounds like a problem with player expectations rather than the game.

Ding!  Winner.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on July 19, 2015, 06:17:14 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 19, 2015, 08:44:15 PM
It's right if you like it and wrong if you don't.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: RandallS on July 19, 2015, 09:35:48 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Orphan81 on July 19, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
Some great responses! It's interesting to see the variety of thought behind different play styles and experiences. I suppose in a sense I'm just "Spoiled" having played point buy systems first. I didn't really get into "Level" based games until 3rd edition and having started my first year of college.

Edit: I forgot to bring up, one thing I never considered was how Magic Items could be considered "Rewards" for leveling up and removing the sting of "Dead Levels">


Quote from: Spinachcat;842770Awesome! How did you discover Werewolf?

I spent the Summer's in my dad's house. Friends with the older kids, one of whom's older brother was a hardcore gamer himself. The older brother had moved out, but left behind some game's for his younger brother.

And so he gathered us all together to play Werewolf... It blew my mind, the idea of a game where you could do "What ever" you wanted. That it was a make believe game, but with rules. It started my love affair with RPG's..with Whitewolf of course my first favorite company (These days it's Pinnacle for Deadlands and then Savage Worlds).

3rd Ed got me into DnD 3.5 made me "meh" 4th edition drove me away...Pathfinder brought me back, and 5th edition solidified my love of seeing how things were suppose to be played "Old School". Less worrying about Challenge rating, letting PC's use their brains and cleverness rather than just rules and videogame esq talents.

From there, I started looking into OSR and while I don't necessarily want to play strictly OSR systems, I fucking love OSR adventure writing and styles..

Quote from: Spinachcat;842770Good luck! Love to hear more about your OSR project!

I've had this idea for a game for a few years now. I originally thought about doing it with Savage Worlds since I've written material for them (Specifically Interface Zero and Totems of the Dead).

I still just didn't know how to make it work, and OSR finally showed me the way...

The short tag line is..
"Imagine getting to play Heroes from the greatest 80's movies taking on the greatest 80's Villains.."

The Quick Story.... Two different future timelines are battling one another to come to pass... One of them, the Earth is a Paradise, (Think the Future from Bill&Ted) the other..a horrible dystopic future that combined the worse aspects of Evil Dead and Terminator with an eventual Fascists dictatorship like seen in "Escape from New York".

The 80's is the pivotal point where History is in flux.

This background is an excuse to have The Ghostbusters team up with the Karate Kid, Team up with John Matrix, and Ellen Ripley to fight Terminators, Camp Crystal Lake Slashers, Terrorists, and Kobra Kai Students..

Given the "Good things have to happen to make the good future" aspect, you might have one adventure where you have to take out an Island full of Terrorists who are pushing drugs into the populace, and in another adventure Make sure a local group of Highschoolers win "The Battle of the Bands".

The OSR "Dead Level" aspects I'm working on are the abilities of each class. I'm calling them "Stunts" and every class starts with a few basic stunts. They're sorta like Feats. I'm only going with 10 levels and I figured I'd let PC's invest in either upgrading an existing Stunt each level, or purchasing a new one.

My Class list goes..

"American-Ass Kicker"

"Cop On the Edge" (And it's alternate build "The Outlaw")

"Commando"

"The Egghead"

"The Charmer"

"The Guardian" (Who comes in Soldier "Kyle Reese/Ripley" variety Slayer "Ash style" Variety.)

When the document is done, I was planning on asking for Playtesters on this forum and a few others.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bloody Stupid Johnson on July 19, 2015, 11:11:40 PM
Dead levels are mainly a concern in 3E or 5E because of their open multiclassing system - if you don't get stuff when you level up in your existing class, you may as well go get a level of something else. Like how in 3.0 you'd take one level of Ranger for Track, TWF and Ambidexterity, then just take fighter and/or rogue or whatever.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Chivalric on July 19, 2015, 11:12:18 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;842982It'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.)

I think it is also commercially driven.  If you have players always choosing new abilities, feats, spells and other options you can sell them sourcebooks full of those options.  I remember for 3rd edition there was a bard and rogue book that was called "The Song and the Silence" or something but my friend always called it "The Lute and the Loot."  I liked his name better, but either way the books didn't really help our games be better.  I guess they helped Wizards make money though.  Getting players to buy supplements instead of just GMs definitely expands the potential customer base.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on July 20, 2015, 03:38:14 AM
Quote from: NathanIW;843049I think it is also commercially driven.  If you have players always choosing new abilities, feats, spells and other options you can sell them sourcebooks full of those options.  I remember for 3rd edition there was a bard and rogue book that was called "The Song and the Silence" or something but my friend always called it "The Lute and the Loot."  I liked his name better, but either way the books didn't really help our games be better.  I guess they helped Wizards make money though.  Getting players to buy supplements instead of just GMs definitely expands the potential customer base.
They tried, but found out that anything with Player's Handbook sold better, much better.  Which is why they created the Player's Handbook 2, which sold much better than the Class Books.  In fact, it was found that people wanted more and more classes, which is why 4e had a glut of them, and why Pathfinder is creating them by the silliness.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: tenbones on July 20, 2015, 11:37:53 AM
Never had a problem with "Dead Levels" in my games. It's a silly term to me.

Most of my games have so much shit going on, levels, and "powerz" and stuff like that are pretty secondary to the game.

Those things, imo, should be nothing more than a mechanical expression of what transpires in the game. Presumeably your setting allows for whatever these classes offer in terms of "powers" and your levels represent the learning of those achievements.

Of course if you run a "DING! I just leveled I have new abilities!" style of game... then nothing I say will make a whole lot of sense, as we're playing different games.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Baulderstone on July 20, 2015, 01:06:34 PM
Quote from: Orphan81;843044I forgot to bring up, one thing I never considered was how Magic Items could be considered "Rewards" for leveling up and removing the sting of "Dead Levels".

It's worth remembering that D&D 3.x spelled out exactly how much treasure PCs got per level, the percentage that should be magic items. After all, treasure gains shouldn't be tied to anything as irrelevant as the plot and character choices.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;843048Dead levels are mainly a concern in 3E or 5E because of their open multiclassing system - if you don't get stuff when you level up in your existing class, you may as well go get a level of something else. Like how in 3.0 you'd take one level of Ranger for Track, TWF and Ambidexterity, then just take fighter and/or rogue or whatever.

You have to love a game design approach where you loudly announce that players can do something now, then redesign the game to try and stop them from doing it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;843073They tried, but found out that anything with Player's Handbook sold better, much better.  Which is why they created the Player's Handbook 2, which sold much better than the Class Books.  In fact, it was found that people wanted more and more classes, which is why 4e had a glut of them, and why Pathfinder is creating them by the silliness.

I found that the constant stream of new classes and feats gave my players a sense of continual dissatisfaction and buyer's remorse. Every month, there would be something that they would have chosen instead if it existed when they made their character.

The CCG model worked in Magic: the Gathering. You can make a new deck every week, or even have six decks that you pull out based on your mood. In D&D 3.x, you generally got one class, maybe one prestige class, and less than a dozen feats over a year or two of play. Showering players with an abundance of choices they would never get to use was a recipe for unhappiness.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Hyper-Man on July 20, 2015, 04:20:42 PM
Wow!  
And I thought the arguments about the use of the term "CON Stunned" in HERO were silly.  :)

Player complaints like this is just one more reason I will never again spend money on a Level based RPG.  AD&D was enough.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: woodsmoke on July 20, 2015, 05:51:05 PM
Quote from: Orphan81;843044Edit: I forgot to bring up, one thing I never considered was how Magic Items could be considered "Rewards" for leveling up and removing the sting of "Dead Levels">

Hell, that's my go-to. It doesn't even need to be a magic item. Or anything especially useful. A rogue I played a while back always had a pack full of odds and ends he was hanging on to for a metaphorical rainy day, some of which he'd picked up during the first or second adventure and held on to for over a year of real time before I thought of a use for 'em. And being clever like that was always far more satisfying than doing something according to class, even if I did it exceptionally well.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: rawma on July 20, 2015, 08:50:32 PM
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;843048Dead levels are mainly a concern in 3E or 5E because of their open multiclassing system - if you don't get stuff when you level up in your existing class, you may as well go get a level of something else. Like how in 3.0 you'd take one level of Ranger for Track, TWF and Ambidexterity, then just take fighter and/or rogue or whatever.

I think this is the truth; earlier D&D had plenty of "dead" levels where you got nothing special, but they were just milestones on the path to some good level. You couldn't get the good level without first getting the dead levels below it. Multiclassing as a heavyweight feat changed that.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Beagle on July 21, 2015, 04:33:39 AM
The concept of geting some shiny new ability on every level is a bit ambivalent - of course it is nice to get new stuff to do, so on an individual level, "dead levels" are clearly inferior to those that grants the character some new ability. On a higher level though, more abilities necessarily requires a more complex, if not allright cluttered system and consequently lead to a mechanical bloat.

I would blame the increase of internet-based discussions about character-optimisation (and that sub-culture that seems more concerned with building characters instead of actually playing them) for the increased concern about "dead levels". People who rarely play (if at all) aren't particularly affected by a not particularly streamlined gameplay.  

However, I think it is possible that there is also a certain double  standard at work here: after all, clerics and magic-users have always gained increasingly shiny new abilities on every new level.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Omega on July 21, 2015, 06:56:33 AM
Quote from: Hyper-Man;843164Wow!  
And I thought the arguments about the use of the term "CON Stunned" in HERO were silly.  :)

Player complaints like this is just one more reason I will never again spend money on a Level based RPG.  AD&D was enough.

Level based works fine. Its the at times loony ideals of the players that can skew things way way off kilter.

I wonder how these morons would handle a game like Tunnels & Trolls which is wall to wall dead levels.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bren on July 21, 2015, 08:17:57 AM
Quote from: Omega;843304I wonder how these morons would handle a game like Tunnels & Trolls which is wall to wall dead levels.
Maybe by avoiding it?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: jibbajibba on July 21, 2015, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;843073They tried, but found out that anything with Player's Handbook sold better, much better.  Which is why they created the Player's Handbook 2, which sold much better than the Class Books.  In fact, it was found that people wanted more and more classes, which is why 4e had a glut of them, and why Pathfinder is creating them by the silliness.

Been that way since Ranger and Paladin, Assassin and Druid
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Baulderstone on July 21, 2015, 10:59:33 AM
Quote from: Beagle;843291However, I think it is possible that there is also a certain double  standard at work here: after all, clerics and magic-users have always gained increasingly shiny new abilities on every new level.

That's true, but one thing I always found was that more mechanically-inclined players were drawn to those classes and casual players wanted nothing to do with them. Adding new shinies at every level of every class is providing no space in your game for casual players. Those casual players are less likely to be chatting in game forums, so its easy for them to be completely forgotten, even though they have made up a decent percentage of people in my game groups over the years.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on July 21, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
I didn't use to care, but 3E convinced me this was a problem.  Did you ever level up in 3E?  The first time I did it, I couldn't believe it.  I had to go and rework half my sheet.  Skills, attack bonuses, etc.  Heaven forfend you had a stat bonus increase, you had to go down the entire list of skills and play with the numbers.  4E made you adjust literally every number on your sheet.  And none of it mattered.

I like LotFP where the Fighter is the person who gains attack bonuses every level, and everyone else skips those.  That feels really fucking awesome, because no one else is doing it.  Great example of a "small but meaningful" change.  

But yeah, I didn't used to give a shit, but count me into "make this number adjustment feel cool" camp.  If you're just giving everything +1 and all the enemies you're expected to fight get +1 on the backend, fuck off.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GeekEclectic on July 21, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
Quote from: Baulderstone;843350That's true, but one thing I always found was that more mechanically-inclined players were drawn to those classes and casual players wanted nothing to do with them. Adding new shinies at every level of every class is providing no space in your game for casual players. Those casual players are less likely to be chatting in game forums, so its easy for them to be completely forgotten, even though they have made up a decent percentage of people in my game groups over the years.
I'm sure it's possible to set up your level progression so that you get something at every level and still get those new things at the same rate that you already do in something like OD&D or T&T. You wouldn't gain as many levels, and you'd have to adjust the HP gains and attack bonus/thac0(or whatever) gains to account for that, but every level would represent an actual milestone in your career.

There are also a variety of "shinies" that you can grant players that don't add much, if anything, to the overall mechanical complexity of the class if you keep the level progression the same and just want to fill in the "dead" levels. Worrying about overwhelming "casuals" before you've seen what specifically the game designer has chosen to add is simply unwarranted.

Also, in certain versions of D&D, the mechanical complexity gap between fighter/rogue and cleric/magic-user is pretty huge. You could add a bit of complexity to the former without coming anywhere near the complexity of the latter. So even if some of the additions do add a little mechanical complexity to the classes, they'd still be pretty darn simple. I doubt anyone here who's in favor of filling in the "dead" levels has any desire to make those classes more difficult to pick up and play.

That's not to mention the whole "gotta keep it simple for the 'casuals'" thing is just condescending as hell.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: tenbones on July 21, 2015, 12:42:19 PM
Quote from: jibbajibba;843328Been that way since Ranger and Paladin, Assassin and Druid

This is why they should just make char-gen a process of picking a series of background templates (like Warhammer, Talislanta, etc.) that create your character. "Leveling" just gives you XP to buy template granted skills/abilities cheaper.

It could be done in D&D. But people don't wanna kill any precious holy-dairy-beasts.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 21, 2015, 01:20:57 PM
Quote from: tenbones;843372This is why they should just make char-gen a process of picking a series of background templates (like Warhammer, Talislanta, etc.) that create your character. "Leveling" just gives you XP to buy template granted skills/abilities cheaper.

It could be done in D&D. But people don't wanna kill any precious holy-dairy-beasts.

Or maybe we actually like the game.

.....naaaaaaaaaah
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on July 21, 2015, 01:46:32 PM
Quote from: tenbones;843372This is why they should just make char-gen a process of picking a series of background templates (like Warhammer, Talislanta, etc.) that create your character. "Leveling" just gives you XP to buy template granted skills/abilities cheaper.

It could be done in D&D. But people don't wanna kill any precious holy-dairy-beasts.

So basically we would get XP in order to gain levels which would then allow us to spend XP on freeform skills and abilities.  

Isn't this just gating the Vampire skill system with the D&D level model?  What's good about this?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: tenbones on July 21, 2015, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: GreyICE;843389So basically we would get XP in order to gain levels which would then allow us to spend XP on freeform skills and abilities.  

Isn't this just gating the Vampire skill system with the D&D level model?  What's good about this?

I'll take the Pepsi-challenge!

Mind you - this is all just me white-room shit talking. I've never actually done this with D&D, so no one get their panties in a knot about me molesting your magical bovines, because they happen to be partially my bovines as well. I just treat them shabbier.

So comparing D&D to Vampire...

Generally speaking - both games have a magic system, gated by experience gain and expenditures. Both games have skill systems, Vampire is gated, 1e/2e are not. The idea behind XP is that you essentially spend it to accrue a package of character upgrades.

In Vampire, where the only real constraints on you are your clan disciplines. Everything is pretty much uniform in expenditures, barring roleplaying requirements that we'll stipulate at each table is highly dependant on the GM and therefore irrelevant for the purposes of comparing these two systems. You purchase whatever upgrades you need based on the availability of the currency - XP. You can purchase stats, skills, powers, etc. As a player you have very fine control over how your PC will interact with the vissicitudes of the game<---hah! pun intended!

In D&D you have a couple of templates (for the sake of debate - I'm going to use 5e as an example, where it differs from previous editions, it should be moot, theoretically). So you have your racial template, and your class template. Your class template gives you basic skills/abilities that you're effectively purchasing with XP points to "level up".

The only functional difference is you have less control on how you can control what these points are spent on. Sure you can multi-class, but then you're still looking at having a proscribed set of values that are pre-purchased for you by the template itself.

What harm comes from revaluing each class's special abilities? (and you can have pre-reqs just like Vampire does. - you can't learn Celerity 5 without knowing the ranks below it. Or stats? or Spells? Or Saves? Or Defense?

It's not more arbitrary in protecting the conceits of your game by limiting what classes are available to limiting what *specific* abilities are/are not available, as a GM. So what's the problem? More choices for PC's is not, in my experience, a bad thing.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on July 21, 2015, 05:50:36 PM
Because it subverts the entire point of a level system.  The point of a level system is so that you could graduate into bigger and better challenges - greater dangers, more grandiose traps, larger monsters, more epic treasure.  

To do that, Gygax gave us a series of general progressions.  There weren't too many, you weren't intended to get super high (none of this level 20/30 nonsense), you were just intended to grow and expand over your career and go to more dangerous and cooler places.  They were even individually titled, to map your growth.  

There was an expectation that things would be generally... proportionate.  Fair isn't the right word, nor is balanced (neither is a concept that is overly worth pursuing) but there was an idea that you'd be expected to handle certain things at certain levels, and run screaming at lower levels.  That was part of the point - shit, we're level 8, time to go kill that Giant that killed Rob and made us all run away at level 3.  

This is good.  In fact this is the only thing good about the level system.  But it is a very good thing.  

Now, lets examine Vampire (mostly because it gives me less of a headache than GURPS).  Vampire does not expect minimal competence at any task from anyone.  Nor does it expect its challenges to be proportionate.  You may have to go intimidate/silence/kill some humans to preserve the Masquerade, where the greatest challenge is "how to do this while destroying their credibility or making it look like natural causes?"  Or the Prince might send you to go kill a sixth generation Sabbat Bishop from the 8th century, because haha fuck you.  A big challenge might come in the form of a corporate takeover, an FBI investigation into the city's police force, or an abomination smashing through a wall.

Customization allows PCs to play to their strengths in a brutally unfair world.  No one wants a fair fight in Vampire.  The very concept is literally repugnant to any sensible vampire.  

So, if I have the customization options for everything about my PC in a level system, I'm no longer expecting to fight Giants at level 8.  It becomes variable, it becomes about planning and ambush, it becomes about playing to your strengths and preparing.  

One of the mainstays of any D&D-like is walking into a dungeon with only a vague idea of what's in there.  That's actual suicide in Vampire - for fucks sake, just staying too long in there is actual suicide, the worst trap possible is the sun.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: tenbones on July 21, 2015, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: GreyICE;843432Because it subverts the entire point of a level system.  The point of a level system is so that you could graduate into bigger and better challenges - greater dangers, more grandiose traps, larger monsters, more epic treasure.

Granted. Let me clear up a few things that might actually address some of these concerns below. When you say "Level system" - I'm fully understanding what you're talking about. My assumptions are that whatever pile of abilities you get from a "D&D Level" as represented by whatever pile of abilties you get in a given class-levelup, is commensurate to the same XP-ability purchases you'd buy in a Vampire-like system.

That said... I'll try to explore this with you point by point <-inadvertant pun! woo!

Quote from: GreyICE;843432To do that, Gygax gave us a series of general progressions.  There weren't too many, you weren't intended to get super high (none of this level 20/30 nonsense), you were just intended to grow and expand over your career and go to more dangerous and cooler places.  They were even individually titled, to map your growth.

/agreed. It wasn't a big deal or even necessary pre-3e. So I have no qualms about this observation. In fact it probably serves a demarcation of import when talking about the differences between D&D editions.

Quote from: GreyICE;843432There was an expectation that things would be generally... proportionate.  Fair isn't the right word, nor is balanced (neither is a concept that is overly worth pursuing) but there was an idea that you'd be expected to handle certain things at certain levels, and run screaming at lower levels.  That was part of the point - shit, we're level 8, time to go kill that Giant that killed Rob and made us all run away at level 3.

This is good.  In fact this is the only thing good about the level system.  But it is a very good thing.  

Okay. Here's where we get into the good stuff. My first immediate reaction is to say: It depends on what kinda game you run. I manage my games a little organically. I use "levels" only as a demarcation of what the powerlevel of the creature is and fit it organically into my campaign world (you and many many others may not necessarily do this). So my monsters aren't necessarily static either.

Using your example... if a Giant is at location X when you and your party were 3rd level and scared you off, and now you're 8th... and you go there, in my games he may/may not even be there. Or he might have accrued his own minions by then. Or maybe he's found a mate. OR it might just be the same ol' Giant. The issue for me as a GM is to figure out what the Giant has been doing this entire time while the PC's have been 'leveling up' other than waiting around to be slaughtered by them at 8th level, heh. More to the point - I try to make my games seem like they're living and breathing places. Levels to me are just the abstraction of the PC's skill/powerlevel.

There are definite advantages to using the Level mechanic - as you pointed out. You can have CR challenges etc. It's worth noting I didn't require any of these derived metasystems in 1e/2e (Ironically I think D&D does a shitty job of this, because it doesn't weight Feats, Spells, skills, and class abilities against one another, in 3.x/PF. See Fantasycraft for a REALLY well done representation of this). If D&D actually did balance their class abilites/spells/feats against one another I suspect you and I could have both of our ideas without a problem at all. Both systems could exist in the same book.

Quote from: GreyICE;843432Now, lets examine Vampire (mostly because it gives me less of a headache than GURPS).  Vampire does not expect minimal competence at any task from anyone.  Nor does it expect its challenges to be proportionate.  You may have to go intimidate/silence/kill some humans to preserve the Masquerade, where the greatest challenge is "how to do this while destroying their credibility or making it look like natural causes?"  Or the Prince might send you to go kill a sixth generation Sabbat Bishop from the 8th century, because haha fuck you.  A big challenge might come in the form of a corporate takeover, an FBI investigation into the city's police force, or an abomination smashing through a wall.

I'm going to disagree here on a point. Vampire works like this - yes. But this is also how I run my D&D games - like a sandbox. NPC's of varying power-levels exists where they need/can exist. If they have enemies - there must be, in the gameworld, a reason this status-quo exists. In Vampire it's explicit. In D&D it's that way only if you run your games like a sandbox. If the sign says - "Here be Dragons" and your 3rd level character hex-crawled your asses beyond that sign... there damn well might be a dragon.

If you run your D&D games like a module where everything is pre-determined or prescribed... then yeah, this is a problem. I bypass this issue because I prefer the sandbox, and larger scope campaign-style.

Quote from: GreyICE;843432Customization allows PCs to play to their strengths in a brutally unfair world.  No one wants a fair fight in Vampire.  The very concept is literally repugnant to any sensible vampire.  

So, if I have the customization options for everything about my PC in a level system, I'm no longer expecting to fight Giants at level 8.  It becomes variable, it becomes about planning and ambush, it becomes about playing to your strengths and preparing.

Yep. Perhaps that's the only real difference here. Using a Level-based mechanics is a bit more meta-gamey. You're a 10th-level fighter? As a GM you generally immediately know what that PC is capable of. Same with the rest of the classes. The downside is they're kept in those respective templates unless they're highly multi-classed but let's face it, it makes less sense to do that unless you're running a very light-handed game.

I'm curious what some of the OSR-folks around here feel about this, in particular.

Quote from: GreyICE;843432One of the mainstays of any D&D-like is walking into a dungeon with only a vague idea of what's in there.  That's actual suicide in Vampire - for fucks sake, just staying too long in there is actual suicide, the worst trap possible is the sun.

LOL definitely true on the Vampire part. But I'm less sure about that with D&D. It's definitely part of everyone's experience to a point. But I think after some years, most of my D&D games have become just that. Not sure if that's true across the board here, or it's just me. I'm a die-hard sandbox GM. But I like to flesh out my sandbox and pack as much stuff for my PC's to play with as possible. I don't think this *requires* a Level-based system at all.

Whew! Hope that wasn't too much to read.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 21, 2015, 09:02:03 PM
Massive shifts in expectations and how the game is played.

I no longer remember where I've said what, but tough shit.

"At least one referee and from four to fifty players"  D&D volume 1 page 5

Many people have stated online that they thought this meant Gary had 50 people in one room.  Now you know why I think the vast majority of gamers are too stupid to shit unassisted, especially since Volume 3 page 35 says "As the campaign goes into full swing it is probable that there will be various
groups going every which way and all at different time periods."

But there I go expecting to people to read.

So.  In Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Tekumel, and most of the early games, there was a pool of players who would play at various times in various combinations.  In all the time I played in Greyhawk, I NEVER played with the same people twice, and certainly never with the same PCs twice.

Gary was running different groups in various combinations several times a week.  I usually played Thursday nights... but I never knew what other players, or PCs, I would be playing with.

Furthermore, Gary had the nerve to run the game for OTHER people on days other than Thursday.  WHICH MEANS SOME OTHER SON OF A BITCH PLAYER CHARACTER IS GOING TO FIND MY TREASURE AND GET MY XP!

My point (and I do have one) is that this paradigm changes everything in many ways, especially since Gary refused to say "Hup ho you get to the third level."   You had to declare every move every time... only logical in the face of continually changing dungeon maps, shifting corridors, teleporters, and wandering monsters.  You had to crawl your way in, and crawl your way out.

This had several effects.  First of all, it meant that you wanted to stay down in the dungeon as long as you could; there was NO guarantee that some other player character wouldn't steal a treasure if you left it down there.  Some PCs even carved their initials in the walls just so you'd know who'd looted that trunk.

Since you wanted to stay down as long as possible, ANY increase in hit points was seen as a blessing.  Our response to the whole "dead level" pants-pissing would have been "if you don't want those hit points I'll take them."

Furthermore, since you never knew who you'd be playing with, it was an ADVANTAGE that a 4th level fighter was virtually identical to a 6th level fighter except for a few hit points.  For that matter, crossing a "level group" usually meant only a +1 to hit probability and saving throws.  The net effect of this was that a 4th level fighter was an ENTIRELY VIABLE member of a party of 7-9th level characters.

Since every time you hit a dead end you got a wandering monster check, and if you were surprised you got hit from the rear (hurr hurr) it meant that your back rank had better be fighters or clerics in plate armor.  You wouldn't necessarily expect them to be as heavy as your front line, but even a 3rd or 4th level character has enough HP to last a few rounds until the heavy hitters can step up.

Of course, since you wanted to stay down as long as possible, and you had to map your way down and back, it also meant that the whole "fifteen minute workday" simply does not exist.  Nobody wanted to spend thirty real time minutes of mapping and wandering monster checks to fight one combat and then spend another thirty minutes of real time getting back to the surface.... if your map was accurate.  ("Have we been teleported or does the map suck?"  "Maybe both!")

Which meant that the fighters did most of the kiling.  That's important enough that I'm going to say that again.  THE FIGHTERS DID MOST OF THE KILLING.  "Save your spells, we can handle this" was the usual battle cry.  The longer the magic users kept their spells, the longer we could stay down in the dungeon and get treasure for XP, because if we left something behind SOME OTHER SON OF A BITCH PC WOULD GET IT.

So "dead levels" just were never an issue.  Period.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on July 21, 2015, 09:40:57 PM
OG, or GOS now, thank you.  I appreciate getting to feel young again, and every time I read your posts, I'm transported backwards in time.  I get this wonderful vision of frolicking through the green grass as behind me I see a waving cane and a cry of "get off my lawn you filthy children!"

I don't know if humor is the point, or a wonderful side effect, but you're one of my favorite posters regardless.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 21, 2015, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: GreyICE;843486OG, or GOS now, thank you.  I appreciate getting to feel young again, and every time I read your posts, I'm transported backwards in time.  I get this wonderful vision of frolicking through the green grass as behind me I see a waving cane and a cry of "get off my lawn you filthy children!"

I don't know if humor is the point, or a wonderful side effect, but you're one of my favorite posters regardless.

Well, thanks!

I try to make a point (different people playing at different times was one reason we loved every HP) but do it in an entertaining way.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Daztur on July 22, 2015, 03:36:37 AM
For me the big advantage of levels is they bundle things together. When you get a level you get additional magical ability (maybe), skills (maybe), better fighting ability, better saves and better hit points.

A lot of systems without classes and levels let you just choose one of those things and dump all of your points into it. Especially in systems that make you play flat costs for ranks of skills at chargen and escalating costs for ranks of skills it's generally a good idea power-wise to make a one trick pony and absolutely dominate in one area, i.e. make a combat god who can't tie his shoes.

Class based systems don't allow you to overspecialize to that degree. Every magic-user advances in hand to hand combat ability at least a bit. Every fighter gets better at dodging dragon's breath.

Even fighters get better at FIGHTING not whatever narrow skill a non class-based game has chopped fighting into while still being incompetent at the rest.

Which is why I really like the FATE pyramid. Let's me play a swashbuckler who's good with his sword but can also talk, ride a horse and swing from chandeliers who isn't going to get overshadowed in combat by Fighty McFighterson. Although some versions allow stunts or what have let the one tricky ponyism in the back door. FATE has a lot of other annoying stuff but the pyramid is as ingenious as it is simple.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Moracai on July 22, 2015, 07:57:18 AM
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;843464Which meant that the fighters did most of the kiling.  That's important enough that I'm going to say that again.  THE FIGHTERS DID MOST OF THE KILLING.  "Save your spells, we can handle this" was the usual battle cry.
I started gaming with red box D&D. We played it exclusively for many years before trying out other systems. In all those years nobody, NOBODY I knew of played a magic-user (later known as wizard) because the rules were not in their favor at low levels. Why play a weakling wizard, when you could play an awesome fighting-man?!

How did the wizards contribute in your gaming experiences? Were they there just for identifying arcane traps and items?

Edit - Coz if so, wouldn't it be the most sensible thing to do to hire a 1st level NPC wizard for the job?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Omega on July 22, 2015, 02:52:36 PM
Quote from: Moracai;843561How did the wizards contribute in your gaming experiences? Were they there just for identifying arcane traps and items?

Edit - Coz if so, wouldn't it be the most sensible thing to do to hire a 1st level NPC wizard for the job?

For me, who played magic users a-lot. At the early levels it was holding a spell for a crucial moment. Sleep spell if we thought we would encounter a group, Identify, Knock, especially Detect magic if I was in a more utility mode. I tossed darts most of the time and in BX those were 1d6 damage darts, usually trying to tag anything that looked down to its last few HP. My other contribution was as the "knows languages, negotiates, and can map person."

Once made it to level 3 Continual Light was a godsend spell to the group. Later Wizard Eye, Remove Curse, and so on.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GeekEclectic on July 22, 2015, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;843464snip
Oh, wow. It sounds like you really enjoyed that, and I'm glad for that. I really, really am. But I'm also really glad that there was a lot more to choose from -- genres, playstyles, rule sets, etc. -- by the time I got into gaming in 2000(though I'd read some books such as GURPS 3E and been interested since at least 1995). If my first experience with tabletop RPGs resembled what you just described, I honestly think I'd have left and never looked back.

It kind of reminded me of that old story I once heard about Gygax running a dungeon at a convention, I think fairly early on in the life of D&D, and finding out that even at that point a lot of people didn't play the way his own group did. If memory serves, all but one of the groups died in the first trap -- a pit on the other side of an illusory wall. The one group that actually managed to get past that by making use of their 10-foot poles died on the second trap. I forget what the second trap was; I saw the story quite a while ago. And according to Gygax, these are things his own group at home would have had no trouble with because of the way they approached dungeon crawling, and it actually surprised him that literally everyone he played with that day succumbed to the dungeon so fast.

Old stories are neat, but yeah -- I'm so happy to be gaming now instead of then.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bren on July 22, 2015, 09:11:30 PM
Quote from: Daztur;843542A lot of systems without classes and levels let you just choose one of those things and dump all of your points into it.
This is an attribute of the system.

Quote...it's generally a good idea power-wise to make a one trick pony and absolutely dominate in one area, i.e. make a combat god who can't tie his shoes.
The system doesn't make that a good way to develop your character, it only makes it a possible way to develop your character.

If Mr. One-trick-pony never needs to go anywhere without his hand forged twin katanas and never has to do anything in the game except cut things up with his twin katanas that is not an attribute of the system. That is an attribute of the play style.

If your character is too overspecialized in any game I run, then be prepared to trip over your untied shoelaces while balancing on a roof beam over the giant vat of molten lead as you sneak your way into the villain's chateau. Broiled pony...mmmmm. And good luck cutting your way out of the vat of molten led with your hand forged twin katanas.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Exploderwizard on July 23, 2015, 07:01:37 AM
Quote from: Bren;843710This is an attribute of the system.

The system doesn't make that a good way to develop your character, it only makes it a possible way to develop your character.

If Mr. One-trick-pony never needs to go anywhere without his hand forged twin katanas and never has to do anything in the game except cut things up with his twin katanas that is not an attribute of the system. That is an attribute of the play style.

If your character is too overspecialized in any game I run, then be prepared to trip over your untied shoelaces while balancing on a roof beam over the giant vat of molten lead as you sneak your way into the villain's chateau. Broiled pony...mmmmm. And good luck cutting your way out of the vat of molten led with your hand forged twin katanas.

Lets not forget that some systems can be very punishing on characters that don't hyper-specialize. This is one thing about 5E's bounded accuracy that I really like. You can created a more broadly competent character because you aren't forced to keep cramming every available resource into doing one thing just to be able to be barely competent.

This was the 3E way.  A generalist who tried to be broadly competent in a 3.X game was fairly useless at mid to high level. The DCs for everything automatically ratcheted up to provide a "challenge" for the specialists and the result was that anyone who wasn't a one trick pony might as well not try anything. In this case I see stupid one trick characters as a response to the demands of the system.

Of course there are players who will hyper-focus on one trick in ANY system, then bitch and moan when they can't be doing their stupid pet trick literally ALL the time. It's hard to convince these idiots that that might be a good idea, but oh well.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: rawma on July 23, 2015, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Moracai;843561I started gaming with red box D&D. We played it exclusively for many years before trying out other systems. In all those years nobody, NOBODY I knew of played a magic-user (later known as wizard) because the rules were not in their favor at low levels. Why play a weakling wizard, when you could play an awesome fighting-man?!

How did the wizards contribute in your gaming experiences? Were they there just for identifying arcane traps and items?

My first character ever was a magic-user because of rolling 15 intelligence on 3d6 in order. The MU was crucial to getting out of a nasty situation, like being outnumbered by low level monsters that Sleep would take out; or a big reward for using Charm Person on a high-level fighter we couldn't have taken out. The attraction of the class was the potential for future power including items only that class could use.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 23, 2015, 10:45:57 PM
Quote from: GeekEclectic;843647It kind of reminded me of that old story I once heard about Gygax running a dungeon at a convention, I think fairly early on in the life of D&D, and finding out that even at that point a lot of people didn't play the way his own group did. If memory serves, all but one of the groups died in the first trap -- a pit on the other side of an illusory wall.

It was a set of illusionary stairs in a pit.  I was there.  I thought it was hilarious.

Too many people wander around the dungeon like it's fucking Disneyland.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 23, 2015, 10:47:22 PM
Quote from: Moracai;843561I started gaming with red box D&D. We played it exclusively for many years before trying out other systems. In all those years nobody, NOBODY I knew of played a magic-user (later known as wizard) because the rules were not in their favor at low levels. Why play a weakling wizard, when you could play an awesome fighting-man?!

How did the wizards contribute in your gaming experiences? Were they there just for identifying arcane traps and items?

Edit - Coz if so, wouldn't it be the most sensible thing to do to hire a 1st level NPC wizard for the job?

This was absolutely, totally not an issue in my entire 40+ years of D&D.

Some of us wanted to play fighters, some wanted to play magic users, some wanted to play clerics.

So we did.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Daztur on July 24, 2015, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Bren;843710This is an attribute of the system.

The system doesn't make that a good way to develop your character, it only makes it a possible way to develop your character.

If Mr. One-trick-pony never needs to go anywhere without his hand forged twin katanas and never has to do anything in the game except cut things up with his twin katanas that is not an attribute of the system. That is an attribute of the play style.

If your character is too overspecialized in any game I run, then be prepared to trip over your untied shoelaces while balancing on a roof beam over the giant vat of molten lead as you sneak your way into the villain's chateau. Broiled pony...mmmmm. And good luck cutting your way out of the vat of molten led with your hand forged twin katanas.

Some systems encourage specialization more than others.

The most annoying systems are the ones that let you buy skill ranks at a flat cost per rank at character creation and then make you pay an escalating cost per rank when you spend XP.

For example at character creation you can have 5 ranks of melee and 0 ranks of gambling or 4 ranks of melee and one rank of gambling but it it costs 5 XP to go from 4 to 5 ranks of melee and only one XP to go from 0 to 1 rank of gambling.

That sort of system puts a lot of pressure to be an idiot savant right out of the gates as it saves you a lot of XP in the long run.

But in general it`s better to be really good at a few things than mediocre at a lot of things since you can only do one thing at once. That`s why in AD&D the game recognizes that a multiclassed 5 fighter/5 mu/5 cleric is vastly weaker than a character with 15 levels in any one class and sets things up accordingly.

Juat prefer games like FATE and D&D where I don`t have to make a choice between making a character who`s hyperspecialized or a character who`s going to get overshadowed at what they`re best at by characters who are hyperspecialized.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bren on July 24, 2015, 03:35:08 PM
Quote from: Daztur;844054Some systems encourage specialization more than others.
Some make specialization cheaper.

QuoteThe most annoying systems are the ones that let you buy skill ranks at a flat cost per rank at character creation and then make you pay an escalating cost per rank when you spend XP.
Yeah, that's a bit silly. H+I does that, though one could do character creation based on the total XP (Advancement Point) cost. The down side is that makes character creation more of an accounting exercise like what one often sees in GURPS or HERO. Which I tend to dislike. Star Wars D6 does that too to some extent, though it has limits on how much one can specialize to start.

QuoteFor example at character creation you can have 5 ranks of melee and 0 ranks of gambling or 4 ranks of melee and one rank of gambling but it it costs 5 XP to go from 4 to 5 ranks of melee and only one XP to go from 0 to 1 rank of gambling.
I'd prefer a more accurate costing and one that doesn't differentiate between before play and after play costs in this way. But I understand the design choice of simplicity over accuracy. If I cared more about the accuracy or about balance, I'd redesign the H+I templates based on Advancement Point totals. Though I haven't done that, so I guess I don't care enough. As an exercise, I should figure out what the AP cost of each of the templates is from a set point of 0 for Qualities and Combat Abilities and assuming no careers. If, as I suspect, there is some significant cost differences, that might be a good reason to redesign.

QuoteThat sort of system puts a lot of pressure to be an idiot savant right out of the gates as it saves you a lot of XP in the long run.
Yet I have seen many players not do that. Which is why I maintain it is not a system issue, but a play issue. The system makes it cheaper to buy high in the beginning, but that only really makes sense if the GM runs a game where the idiot savant doesn't have to ever do anything other than a lightning calculations of the number of toothpicks spilled on the floor or whatever their shtick is (and not all GMs run that sort of game) and where the players are focus a fair amount of attention on how powerful their character is vs. some other theoretical character design (and not all players focus on character power like that).

QuoteBut in general it`s better to be really good at a few things than mediocre at a lot of things since you can only do one thing at once.
Not if you are required to do things that you are mediocre or worse at because play does not involve tightly designed parties that can parse out the roles of fighter, mage, face, etc. I run a lot of duet adventures and a lot of adventures where the PCs split up so that characters often have to make do with only their own resources. That makes the idiot savant a much less viable and hence less attractive build choice.

QuoteThat`s why in AD&D the game recognizes that a multiclassed 5 fighter/5 mu/5 cleric is vastly weaker than a character with 15 levels in any one class and sets things up accordingly.
My recollection from OD&D and AD&D was that multiclass characters divided XP amongst their classes. Since different classes required different amounts of XP to level, characters didn't usually have 5/5/5 as a level. They'd be more likely to end up with something like 5/4/6 or some such. At least that was my experience with an Elven F/M who eventually was a F/M/T when he topped out on levels for F and M. So I think we are in agreement here. It seems like D&D simplified XP costs to make them the same for each class by level and then simplified the leveling to treat the levels as something where you could choose the next level of another class so a 4th level fighter could pick up a level of mage or thief or something instead of a level of fighter and would then be 5th level or something. I'm not sure I understand the design though there. Are levels the same cost per level rather than increasing in cost as the level increased in number?

QuoteJuat prefer games like FATE and D&D where I don`t have to make a choice between making a character who`s hyperspecialized or a character who`s going to get overshadowed at what they`re best at by characters who are hyperspecialized.
"Juat"? You kind of lost me there.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Daztur on July 24, 2015, 03:53:18 PM
Typo. Meant "just." On cell w stubby thumbs.

Yes for 1ed the exact example is off since you don`t get even advancement but the point was that a multiclass character is going to get a LOT more total levels if you add up all the levels but that`s OK because of how powerful specialization is. Just tend to not like games that make hyperspecialization cheap, games with levels avoid that in most cases. The FATE pyramid is the best thing about FATE since it avoids that as well.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Orphan81 on July 25, 2015, 08:29:00 AM
After running a few sessions of Lamentations of the Flame Princess with my group, I've begun to broaden my horizons on the "Dead Level" phenomona...

I really think now it depends on what kind of fantasy game style you're running with your group. I've been running "Better than any man" and with the old school style of down and dirty fantasy...the lower power, less jazz approach really works... it keeps things grounded, and makes advancement easier...

However, when I run something more High Fantasy like Golarion, the more abilities of Pathfinder (Or 5th edition which is my preferred system for Level based fantasy these days) Seems like overall to be a better approach...
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Haffrung on July 25, 2015, 12:15:50 PM
Surely more HP, increased chances to hit, and better saves are clear benefits of levelling. A 6th level Fighter in AD&D is superior to a 3rd level Fighter, even though he has no more special toggles or abilities on his character sheet. And that's not even touching on magic items.

Quote from: RandallS;843034The 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.

Quote from: Baulderstone;843350That's true, but one thing I always found was that more mechanically-inclined players were drawn to those classes and casual players wanted nothing to do with them. Adding new shinies at every level of every class is providing no space in your game for casual players. Those casual players are less likely to be chatting in game forums, so its easy for them to be completely forgotten, even though they have made up a decent percentage of people in my game groups over the years.

Coming across the concept of 'dead levels' years ago on RPG forums, along with terms like 'character builds', made it clear to me that a lot of people played D&D for fundamentally different reasons than my group has been playing since 1979. I have players who have played nothing but fighters for 30+ years precisely because they don't want to learn a bunch of special abilities. Wanting a growing list of customizable special abilities to reference on a character sheet is a matter of personal preferences, not superior design.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on July 25, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;844255Wanting a growing list of customizable special abilities to reference on a character sheet is a matter of personal preferences, not superior design.

Speaking of things I'd like to burn into some peoples' flesh with the tip of a red-hot poker...
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: RPGPundit on July 29, 2015, 02:57:14 AM
Most Uruguayan gamers (aside from an older core of the local hobby that started on 2e) were reared on 3.x D&D.  For them, their first experiences with 1e AD&D or BECMI style rule-sets was the OSR.  I was literally the guy who introduced the Rules Cyclopedia to the local hobby, as well as the 1e books, and the first guy to bring in OSR stuff.

So, some of these guys, when playing old-school D&D, find it strange when they level up and all they get sometimes is hit points.  The lack of feats and skill points, and even having to-hit bonuses or saving throws only change every few levels, seems strange to them.

But they get used to it after not too long.

Even so, my own preference is for the idea that you should get something worthwhile in every level, or feel like you are. Hence both my Arrows of Indra rules and my Appendix P rules are based on that idea.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: tenbones on July 29, 2015, 12:56:20 PM
I don't have anything against the idea that you get something every level.

My problem is that MOST of the time, in my experience, starting with 3e - there came the white-room comparison which showed how mish-mashed and unbalanced everything really was. There wasn't an idea that you should get something every level, but oddly that idea emerged out of the observations made in these white-room observations. Which exacerbated the optimum-build mentality.

The key, to me, is - if you're going to insist something cool is obtained every level, to balance it out against the respective conceits of your game. I don't believe all classes should be balanced based on damage output, or shit like that. I believe they should be representative of what they do best by the conceits of their game. And sure, by all means give them cool shit to do.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: jibbajibba on July 29, 2015, 01:13:16 PM
In my heartbreaker when you level you get 10 points to spend on a list of stuff.

the list is priced according to your class/archetype and there are caps on how many you can buy of a thing.

So typically when a Warrior levels

i) +1 Attack (1 point)
ii) + 1 Defence (1 point)
iii) + 1 HP - you can buy up to 3 (1 point each)
iv) + 1 to a skill level a skill can go up 1 point but you can put up many skills (2 points)
v)Gain a new skill 4 points
vi) gain a rank in a combat style (1 point)  

If you wanted to you could gain magical casting and pick one of the 6 casting types but for a Warrior that is 30 points.
If a warrior has casting they can pick up a new spell, formuale, name, binding or miracle  for 5 or add Manna for 3 per point

This gives you the mix between class based and skill based. You end up with strong archetypes Warrior/Rogue/Magus who specialize in Combat/Skills/Magic as opposed to most classless systems were people often tend towards uniform generalists, but the development of the character can be changed by you. Note that there is a standard "spend" for each archetype if you either don't want the option to vary or can't be arsed.
Also note that "special powers" that are so tied to the D&D class system and lead to so much system bloat are tied to skills, combat styles or whatever so if the DM creates 10 new archetypes for a game based in say Pre Columbian Mexico then you can do that from the toolkits you have and there is no need to generate new cool powerz.

I understand some people would find the lack of special widgets bland but I much prefer to focus on the role play than the cool power list.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Omega on July 30, 2015, 03:08:27 AM
Quote from: jibbajibba;845115In my heartbreaker when you level you get 10 points to spend on a list of stuff.

That was how Red Shetland worked. You leveld up and had points you could spend on acquiring new skills from your profession, or try to pick up something from outside it through practice or a teacher. Speeding up the natural learning process.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: jibbajibba on July 30, 2015, 05:28:43 AM
Quote from: Omega;845208That was how Red Shetland worked. You leveld up and had points you could spend on acquiring new skills from your profession, or try to pick up something from outside it through practice or a teacher. Speeding up the natural learning process.

For me its a natural extension to 2e thieves' skills
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: kosmos1214 on August 04, 2015, 11:14:04 PM
i think much of this has to do with the game in question in 0d&d the simple hp gain was probly enough at least with the way Gygax played on the other had you have games where you never gain hp except maybe taking a ability like toughness and even that may be heavy limited depending on the system if you start with 100 hp an extra 3 or 4 hp no mater how rare means much less then that extra 3 or 4 hit pints in pretty much any ed of d&d except maybe 4e
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 04, 2015, 11:49:00 PM
Punctuation, motherfucker!! Do you use it?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: kosmos1214 on August 04, 2015, 11:58:56 PM
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846622Punctuation, motherfucker!! Do you use it?

some times bad sadly i am one of those that tends to for get such things.
 sorry
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Moracai on August 05, 2015, 04:06:13 AM
Hey gronan! Kosmos1214 is probably a french dude. They don't know english pretty much at all and drag all their typing through a translator.

Or at least I keep telling myself that, but there are things in his texts that even a translator service wouldn't do...
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 05, 2015, 10:30:34 AM
Quote from: Moracai;846677Hey gronan! Kosmos1214 is probably a french dude. They don't know english pretty much at all and drag all their typing through a translator.

Or at least I keep telling myself that, but there are things in his texts that even a translator service wouldn't do...

If he's a non native English speaker I'll apologize.

Though they usually have WAY better English than I do...
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: J.L. Duncan on August 05, 2015, 03:16:42 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;842945The 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.

Winner!!!


Dead Levels?!? Bad Design-Seriously? Are you telling me there is no value in having someone weave a story and environment for you to interact with? Or the most important aspect is to have a couple of numbers scratched on a sheet?

Get off my lawn!
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 05, 2015, 03:18:49 PM
Dead Levels suck compared to levels where you get stuff. I figured that was pretty self-explanatory?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Omega on August 05, 2015, 06:23:14 PM
I hate being dead when I level up...
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Hyper-Man on August 05, 2015, 08:29:28 PM
Quote from: Omega;846825I hate being dead when I level up...

Doesn't seem to hurt Vecna.

http://jimkang.com/namedlevels/#/class/Vecna

QuoteVecnas TABLE I.
Level Title
20-Sided Dice for Accumulated Hit Points
Experience Level
Experience Points
1    2    Student Vecna    1    â€”    2,500
2    3    Junior Vecna    2,501    â€”    4,500
3    4    Lesser Vecna    4,501    â€”    8,000
4    5    Cadet Vecna    8,001    â€”    14,500
5    6    Intern Vecna    14,501    â€”    31,000
6    7    Minor Vecna    31,001    â€”    70,000
7    8    Assistant Vecna    70,001    â€”    154,000
8    9    Trainee Vecna    154,001    â€”    165,000
9    10    Trainee Vecna (9th level)    165,001    â€”    185,000
10    11    Trainee Vecna (10th level)    185,001    â€”    220,000
11    12    Trainee Vecna (11th level)    220,001    â€”    265,000
12    13    Vecna    265,001    â€”    340,000
13    13+4    Prime Vecna    340,001    â€”    415,000
14    13+8    Master Vecna    415,001    â€”    490,000
15    13+12    Superior Master Vecna    490,001    â€”    565,000
16    13+16    Arch Master Vecna    565,001    â€”    640,000
17    13+20    The Number One Master Vecna    640,001    â€”    715,000
18    13+24    The Number One Master Vecna (18th level)    715,001    â€”    790,000
19    13+28    The Number One Head Vecna    790,001    â€”    865,000
20    13+32    The Number One Head Vecna (20th level)    865,001    â€”    940,000
21    13+36    The Number One Head Vecna (21st level)    940,001    â€”    1,015,000
22    13+40    The Number One Head Vecna (22nd level)    1,015,001    â€”    1,090,000
Vecnas gain 4 h.p. per level after the 12th.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 05, 2015, 08:53:16 PM
Quote from: J.L. Duncan;846798Winner!!!


Dead Levels?!? Bad Design-Seriously? Are you telling me there is no value in having someone weave a story and environment for you to interact with? Or the most important aspect is to have a couple of numbers scratched on a sheet?

Get off my lawn!

When all that matters is what exactly you can do in a mechanical sense then no none of that matters.

The environment? You mean that scrolling two dimensional backdrop that exists only so that I can look awesome doing my kewl moves? What about it?

What matters is that MY numbers are biggerer and betterer so that I can compare them to other numbers and win challenges. Everything else is useless fluff! :rolleyes:
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on August 05, 2015, 09:54:50 PM
Quote from: Batman;846800Dead Levels suck compared to levels where you get stuff. I figured that was pretty self-explanatory?

It's a thinly disguised 'My game is better than your game' argument.  I just nod and move on, for the most part.

Personally, I like mechanical 'toys' to play with.  Some people do not.  There is no better, no worse.  Just is.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on August 06, 2015, 11:17:32 AM
There should be some "point" to a level increase, otherwise the level increase is just a number on a sheet.  As OG notes, back in the day the HP was the reward, and really changed how your character felt.  If that's not how your system rolls, if HP is important but not something you salivate over, then there really should be some reason.

Can someone like Exploder Wizard tell me what the point is of incrementing a bunch of numbers on your sheet if nothing really changes about gameplay?  You complain that people are focused on mechanics, but you're missing the point.  By having a level up that has no gameplay impact, you have a levelup that is only mechanics - a bunch of munchkin-friendly +1 bonuses, if you will.  

Why would this be a good system?  Do tell.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Votan on August 06, 2015, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: GreyICE;846948There should be some "point" to a level increase, otherwise the level increase is just a number on a sheet.  As OG notes, back in the day the HP was the reward, and really changed how your character felt.  If that's not how your system rolls, if HP is important but not something you salivate over, then there really should be some reason.

Can someone like Exploder Wizard tell me what the point is of incrementing a bunch of numbers on your sheet if nothing really changes about gameplay?  You complain that people are focused on mechanics, but you're missing the point.  By having a level up that has no gameplay impact, you have a levelup that is only mechanics - a bunch of munchkin-friendly +1 bonuses, if you will.  

Why would this be a good system?  Do tell.

I think the prestige of leveling up (including 1st Edition AD&D level titles) is an under-explored point in modern gaming.  Why do people get good at sports now?  For recognition and possibly wealth.  Going up a level shows greater excellence and, if not completely abstracted from the world, can be a means of gaining respect.  

And some elements are hard to abstract.  You can pretend you can't see a fighter going up in levels but the characters -- in game -- are probably working out the spell system.  

"He just cast disintegrate.  He must have the potential to cast a lot of spells, including a bunch of high level spells, unless he has a device and is a great showperson"
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: kosmos1214 on August 06, 2015, 02:39:11 PM
yes sorry English is my 1st language im just very bad with punctuation on the internet
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 06, 2015, 04:16:16 PM
Quote from: GreyICE;846948There should be some "point" to a level increase, otherwise the level increase is just a number on a sheet.  As OG notes, back in the day the HP was the reward, and really changed how your character felt.  If that's not how your system rolls, if HP is important but not something you salivate over, then there really should be some reason.

Can someone like Exploder Wizard tell me what the point is of incrementing a bunch of numbers on your sheet if nothing really changes about gameplay?  You complain that people are focused on mechanics, but you're missing the point.  By having a level up that has no gameplay impact, you have a levelup that is only mechanics - a bunch of munchkin-friendly +1 bonuses, if you will.  

Why would this be a good system?  Do tell.

Level 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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on August 06, 2015, 04:54:49 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: tenbones on August 06, 2015, 07:18:29 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: RandallS on August 06, 2015, 07:23:34 PM
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).
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on August 06, 2015, 07:25:43 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 06, 2015, 08:07:50 PM
Levels are a metagame construct, plain and simple. What DMs do with it is another matter though.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: danskmacabre on August 06, 2015, 11:26:56 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: cranebump on August 06, 2015, 11:56:05 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: danskmacabre on August 07, 2015, 12:05:00 AM
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...  :D
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 07, 2015, 07:04:32 AM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 07, 2015, 09:12:00 AM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 07, 2015, 10:04:15 AM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Opaopajr on August 07, 2015, 10:47:47 AM
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...
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 07, 2015, 10:55:19 AM
I do XP per battle/encounter/instance
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Haffrung on August 07, 2015, 11:24:47 AM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: tenbones on August 07, 2015, 12:44:00 PM
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?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 07, 2015, 01:12:14 PM
Quote from: tenbones;847231Not 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?

I didn't play 2e long enough for any of that to really matter but there's nothing stopping DMs from awarding characters more XP and in-game prestige for doing those things. A Fighter who calls out an opponent in Single combat gains all the XP of that monster instead of dividing it up among his allies and he gains renown from those who witness the spectacle. Wizards and Cleric developing their own spells gets more spells! I guess I don't see a reason why later editions can do the same thing that 2e did?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 07, 2015, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: tenbones;847231It 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?

Ugh. Micro ad-hoc XP awards. Too much of a headache to track properly, and if you do then the time spent doing that detracts from what is going on in the game. Players are constantly doing stupid pet tricks to earn treats, and if you have a table full of them doing it an once it becomes a major pain in the ass.

This is why I just ignore the inspiration mechanic in 5E. Players fixating on doing whatever it takes to earn a cookie constantly turns the whole session into a ( # of players) ring circus trying to get applause.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: tenbones on August 07, 2015, 02:39:57 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;847242Ugh. Micro ad-hoc XP awards. Too much of a headache to track properly, and if you do then the time spent doing that detracts from what is going on in the game. Players are constantly doing stupid pet tricks to earn treats, and if you have a table full of them doing it an once it becomes a major pain in the ass.

I want to remember it like this... but I don't. I remember it being the opposite.

I never found it a pain in the ass to keep track of either. Most of the time, the players did it themselves and helped tally it up at the end, but I had veto power on it.

They did do the stupid-pet-tricks thing... but of course in doing so, it often got them into trouble in the game, which only added more to the game. Some sobered up on it and learned to do it when it mattered to their characters, other's were blatant whores about it... but often paid the iron-price for it.

HMMM... maybe I should re-visit it. Anyone else think it was a pain in the ass?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 07, 2015, 03:58:04 PM
I don't keep track of players' XP.  If I don't trust them to be honest and accurate they aren' t invited.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on August 07, 2015, 04:20:17 PM
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.

Very well, lets consider game design.  Since I know more about board games than you can even imagine, this should be a very enlightening discussion for you - if you were capable of listening.  Since I have a sneaking suspicion you're one of those people who likes to argue on the internet more than you like actually learning things, I tend to doubt you'll learn anything, but I like to behave like people aren't blithering idiots until they remove the last little bit of doubt.

One of the principles of any long game is that it should evolve over the length of the game.  Through the Ages, Twilight Imperium, Descent, Dungeon Lords, Twilight Struggle, these change and evolve over the course of the game.   Turn 8 of Twilight Struggle simply does not look like turn 1 - and why should it?  The Late War is a very different beast, and a good game provides progression and change.

Even Warhammer 40K follows this (and that's hyper low evolution by board gaming scales).  Although the armies don't evolve, as the battlelines clash, the game fundamentally changes.  Reserve units and powers get expended, vehicles explode, squads lose strength.  As the board changes, people have to change and evolve their strategies.  

This is good design.  Good long games change and evolve, because changing and evolving offers the players new options.  Like peeling back layers of the onion, you can use old things in new ways, and new things to solve old problems.  

Incrementing numbers doesn't do this.  One does not change the decision to hit an Owlbear because one has +4 to hit rather than +3.  It's not a new decision, it's slightly better at doing an old decision.

If you're proposing that D&D learn from game design, then I suggest D&D learns from game design.  Because we have come so far from Axis and Allies that it's hard to even document every evolution.  And trotting out a 40 year old design and saying "yep, they nailed every bit of it, perfect game" is an excellent way to get laughed at.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on August 07, 2015, 04:47:43 PM
Quote from: GreyICE;847276If you're proposing that D&D learn from game design, then I suggest D&D learns from game design.  Because we have come so far from Axis and Allies that it's hard to even document every evolution.  And trotting out a 40 year old design and saying "yep, they nailed every bit of it, perfect game" is an excellent way to get laughed at.

SH!  You're talking about the 'bad kind' of Evolution!  Don't do that!
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 07, 2015, 05:36:43 PM
Quote from: GreyICE;847276Very well, lets consider game design.  Since I know more about board games than you can even imagine, this should be a very enlightening discussion for you - if you were capable of listening.  Since I have a sneaking suspicion you're one of those people who likes to argue on the internet more than you like actually learning things, I tend to doubt you'll learn anything, but I like to behave like people aren't blithering idiots until they remove the last little bit of doubt.

One of the principles of any long game is that it should evolve over the length of the game.  Through the Ages, Twilight Imperium, Descent, Dungeon Lords, Twilight Struggle, these change and evolve over the course of the game.   Turn 8 of Twilight Struggle simply does not look like turn 1 - and why should it?  The Late War is a very different beast, and a good game provides progression and change.

Even Warhammer 40K follows this (and that's hyper low evolution by board gaming scales).  Although the armies don't evolve, as the battlelines clash, the game fundamentally changes.  Reserve units and powers get expended, vehicles explode, squads lose strength.  As the board changes, people have to change and evolve their strategies.  

This is good design.  Good long games change and evolve, because changing and evolving offers the players new options.  Like peeling back layers of the onion, you can use old things in new ways, and new things to solve old problems.  

Incrementing numbers doesn't do this.  One does not change the decision to hit an Owlbear because one has +4 to hit rather than +3.  It's not a new decision, it's slightly better at doing an old decision.

If you're proposing that D&D learn from game design, then I suggest D&D learns from game design.  Because we have come so far from Axis and Allies that it's hard to even document every evolution.  And trotting out a 40 year old design and saying "yep, they nailed every bit of it, perfect game" is an excellent way to get laughed at.

Wow.  Apples and drill presses.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: RandallS on August 07, 2015, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: GreyICE;847276If you're proposing that D&D learn from game design, then I suggest D&D learns from game design.  Because we have come so far from Axis and Allies that it's hard to even document every evolution.  And trotting out a 40 year old design and saying "yep, they nailed every bit of it, perfect game" is an excellent way to get laughed at.

First, I still enjoy Axis & Allies.

Second, while RPGs like OD&D and B/X and their variants are NOT perfect games, they provide the fantasy RPG experience I want far better than most of their more modern relatives. Those old games nailed the experience I enjoy while the newer games generally do not come nearer as close.

Can systems be improved? Sure, but I am only interested in those improved systems if the result is pretty much the same experience I get out of those old games. If the improvements change the play into something I enjoy less, they are not improvements for me.

Examples:

1) I like my D&D combat to be very fast (average of 10 minutes or so, 20-25 minutes max for the occasional, important "boss combat"), somewhat abstract, and have no interest in a tactical minis game in the middle of my RPG. Modern versions of D&D have combats that take far longer than I like, often all but require minis and battlemats, and stress what I call "rules-manipulation tactics" where tactics aren't a "simulation" of real world tactics but are the tactics of knowing and using the game rules to the best advantage.

2) I do not consider games mechanics interesting. In an RPG, I want the rules to fade into the background so I can focus on the game world, the adventure, and what my character is doing in it. The more I have to think in game mechanics, the less interest I have in the rules. Modern versions of D&D tend to have all sorts of "game mechanics gadgets" one has to learn and carefully manipulate which requires studying the rules. I want players to simply say what their character is doing and the GM tells them the result or what to roll. Players should not have to read the rules (let alone master them) to do this.

3) I want character generation to be fast and simple without needing system mastery to build a character. Modern versions of D&D make character creation far too complex and time consuming for my interests.

4) I want player skill to matter in the actual play of the game far more than character skill. Modern versions of the game tend to make character skill trump player skill.

5) I have no interest in the type of game balance that modern versions of D&D stress. I don't want characters than are always able to do well no matter what the task. I do not want set-piece encounters designed around the abilities of the PCs.

Etc.

So while there have been many changes many people consider "improvements" in D&D over the last 40 years, many of the "improvements" changed the play experience greatly -- and into something I do not enjoy playing.  My point: what is an "improvement" to D&D and what is not is subjective opinion far more often than it is objective fact. It's only an improvement if it makes the game better for the style of play you enjoy -- no matter what game design theory might say.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Opaopajr on August 07, 2015, 06:41:53 PM
Quote from: tenbones;847231Not 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?

They were, and are, fun!

And compared to the +10% for high stats, +% for in-class behavior was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cooler. Besides, outside of +% there was fixed XP value rewards for pursuing in-class goals. It was in the 2e DMG Experience chapter, so if +% was tiresome bookkeeping, a fixed +50 or +200 is a complete non-issue alternative.

My rosy tint glasses makes everything so nice... The past was glorious, filled with unironic Rubik's cubes, CDs in jewel cases, Tab cola...
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on August 07, 2015, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: RandallS;847296First, I still enjoy Axis & Allies.
Nothing wrong with that, but when we compare it to Memoir '44, A Fire in the Lake or Fortress America we start to see that the old dog has not aged quite so well.  


Quote2) I do not consider games mechanics interesting. In an RPG, I want the rules to fade into the background so I can focus on the game world, the adventure, and what my character is doing in it. The more I have to think in game mechanics, the less interest I have in the rules. Modern versions of D&D tend to have all sorts of "game mechanics gadgets" one has to learn and carefully manipulate which requires studying the rules. I want players to simply say what their character is doing and the GM tells them the result or what to roll. Players should not have to read the rules (let alone master them) to do this.

I would somewhat agree.  Exploder Wizard was the one who suggested that by doing so you are a "treating D&D as a collaborative wish fulfillment storytelling exercise" and that you have lost sight of the fact that D&D is a game.  

I was pointing out that if you evaluate D&D purely as a game, not only is the "dead level" mechanic poor, the mechanics as a whole are poor.  Games are not meant to fade into the background, they are meant to be an engaging experience on their own.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: RandallS on August 07, 2015, 07:37:31 PM
Quote from: GreyICE;847301I was pointing out that if you evaluate D&D purely as a game, not only is the "dead level" mechanic poor, the mechanics as a whole are poor.  Games are not meant to fade into the background, they are meant to be an engaging experience on their own.

Card games, board games, and sports games certainly are -- and they are also competitive. However, I believe RPGs need be neither mechanically engaging nor competitive. The type of RPGs I most enjoy fit what is usually/often the second dictionary definition of the word "game": "an activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime" as opposed to "a competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules".

I see RPGs as way of experiencing an alternative world created by/ran by a referee as a character in that world as opposed to something competitive thing centered on rules.

However, in general, I do not think much of modern game theory as it calls many popular games that many people enjoy playing poorly designed (e.g. Monopoly). To me, useful game theory should explain why a game is popular so other such popular games can be created. Game theory that basically says many popular games are poorly designed while extolling the good design of games that few like/play is useless as it is trying to tell people what they should really like as opposed to explaining what makes popular games click. It would be like a scientific theory that tells how the world should work in the view of its proponents instead of telling how the world actually does work.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 07, 2015, 08:04:19 PM
"MY way of playing pretend elf is objectively better because REASONS!"
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: jibbajibba on August 07, 2015, 10:18:23 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;846852When all that matters is what exactly you can do in a mechanical sense then no none of that matters.

The environment? You mean that scrolling two dimensional backdrop that exists only so that I can look awesome doing my kewl moves? What about it?

What matters is that MY numbers are biggerer and betterer so that I can compare them to other numbers and win challenges. Everything else is useless fluff! :rolleyes:

But when you think in exactly the opposite way.

The environment is rich and varied and the PCs occupy in in a wholly interactive way. They are part of the wheft and the weave of the world.
What matters is that my PC is a living breathing fully realised entity who may be expressed mechanically by some numbers on a sheet but in my mind and that of the other players is as understandable and complete as anyone of the players themselves ....

it still doesn't make sense that that there are "dead levels".

In the game world levels represent the fact that you have developed new skills and new abilities the nearest comparison is to get a qualification at school, or a promotion at work.
Each step on this scale should be accompanied by a mechanical benefit (obviously we are working in a level based mechanic so the improvements are already quantum in nature rather than realistically progressive).
Now the other side of this coin is that sometimes it takes a long time to learn something new and maybe you work for years and never really improve. However in a level based system that is represented by the XP you need to progress to a new level not the fact that the level is bereft of mechanical benefits.

So what you actually have in a game with dead levels is a system that panders to the needy players to feel like they are getting their frequent gold stars where as you might be better with fewer levels with more mechanical benefits.

Levels have 3 important meta game functions
i) They allow some balance - a scenario designed for 10th level PCs will be different that one designed for 2nd level PCs and a 10th level thief and a 10th level Wizard should both have a role to play in that scenario, both bringing skills to bear that will be useful
ii) They allow the game to package up a set of abilities for a particular class and then break it down in to different discrete levels of power to give a progression from novice to archetype
iii) they encourage people to show up each week by giving out gold stars for participation and depending on the group reward those that are "better" at the game with more gold stars

Number 3 quickly becomes the dominant one because really most players don't care about the world or imbue their PCs with any sort of depth they just want to kill more stuff faster with cool powerz. That is as true of the guy playing an Elven Fighter/MU in 1978 as it is of a girl playing a Dragonborn Paladin in 2015.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 08, 2015, 09:05:43 AM
Quote from: GreyICE;847276Very well, lets consider game design.  Since I know more about board games than you can even imagine, this should be a very enlightening discussion for you - if you were capable of listening.  Since I have a sneaking suspicion you're one of those people who likes to argue on the internet more than you like actually learning things, I tend to doubt you'll learn anything, but I like to behave like people aren't blithering idiots until they remove the last little bit of doubt.

One of the principles of any long game is that it should evolve over the length of the game.  Through the Ages, Twilight Imperium, Descent, Dungeon Lords, Twilight Struggle, these change and evolve over the course of the game.   Turn 8 of Twilight Struggle simply does not look like turn 1 - and why should it?  The Late War is a very different beast, and a good game provides progression and change.

Even Warhammer 40K follows this (and that's hyper low evolution by board gaming scales).  Although the armies don't evolve, as the battlelines clash, the game fundamentally changes.  Reserve units and powers get expended, vehicles explode, squads lose strength.  As the board changes, people have to change and evolve their strategies.  

This is good design.  Good long games change and evolve, because changing and evolving offers the players new options.  Like peeling back layers of the onion, you can use old things in new ways, and new things to solve old problems.  

Incrementing numbers doesn't do this.  One does not change the decision to hit an Owlbear because one has +4 to hit rather than +3.  It's not a new decision, it's slightly better at doing an old decision.

If you're proposing that D&D learn from game design, then I suggest D&D learns from game design.  Because we have come so far from Axis and Allies that it's hard to even document every evolution.  And trotting out a 40 year old design and saying "yep, they nailed every bit of it, perfect game" is an excellent way to get laughed at.


Whew!  Aren't we fancy?

I'm no board game guru or anything so I will have rely on 35 years of gaming to explain this in a bit of detail.

Good games change and evolve. This is true. The original editions of D&D did a much better job of doing this meaningfully than those that came after. I am speaking of change in a very material way.

 A low level adventurer is scrounging for a bit of loot, looking to gain power and influence. As he/she rises in level that power and influence become evident in the game world. Followers are attracted to the character, a stronghold is established, land cleared of monsters, and the character now wields actual political power.

The game changes in a very real sense, not because a new widget to club monsters gets added to the ability inventory, but because the actual dynamic of play changes from beating up monsters for gold to the complexities of governing, political maneuvering, and partaking in large scale conflicts that shape the history of the game world. OD&D got this dynamic shift right out of the gate.

Lets flash forward to a more evolved form of the game. Twenty six years of rpg game designing have passed and along comes a shiny new 3E game, all streamlined with the lessons that past editions have taught. Now we can finally have a game that evolves over the length of the game. New kewl powers, feats, prestige classes- YES! We have an endless buffet of widgets to add to our characters from level 1 to 20.

So 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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: RandallS on August 08, 2015, 10:50:42 AM
Quote from: jibbajibba;847322it still doesn't make sense that that there are "dead levels".

I have to think that there may be a simple reason why people did not consider a level in which one only gained hit points to be a dead level in OD&D, B/X, and even 1e but they do in more modern versions today. I think hit point inflation is the major reason hit points are no longer seen as a major benefit.  Another hit dice was a major increase in survival power compared to the monsters in OD&D/Greyhawk, B/X, or 1e.

In later versions of the game, monsters started getting more and more hit points, so another hit die for a character did not seem to be that much of an improvement. In older versions of the game that 4.5 average increase in hit points for a fighter actually did mean the fighter could successful take on monsters he could not before. As the hit points for monsters inflated, that 4.5 hit point average increase started meaning less and less compared to the monsters. That is, the increase in hit points no longer really enabled the character to do noticeably better in the game (as it had in early editions).
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 08, 2015, 10:54:03 AM
Hit Point increases are still important, even if you don't get special skills or abilities with a level.

Dead Levels never really troubled me. Maybe I am simply used to it but when I first started hearing complaints about this, I never really understood the concern.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bren on August 08, 2015, 11:06:57 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;847419Hit Point increases are still important, even if you don't get special skills or abilities with a level.

Dead Levels never really troubled me. Maybe I am simply used to it but when I first started hearing complaints about this, I never really understood the concern.
You probably spent some fraction of your life after the age of 18 living in a crappy apartment that didn't come with a state of the art fitness center and you probably drove an old car, if you even could afford a car.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 08, 2015, 11:19:17 AM
Quote from: Bren;847422You probably spent some fraction of your life after the age of 18 living in a crappy apartment that didn't come with a state of the art fitness center and you probably drove an old car, if you even could afford a car.

I still live in a crappy apartment!
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bren on August 08, 2015, 11:35:19 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;847425I still live in a crappy apartment!
More validation for my theory. :)
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 08, 2015, 11:47:55 AM
Quote from: Bren;847432More validation for my theory. :)

I live in a bad neighborhood as well, if that helps your theory.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bren on August 08, 2015, 12:29:38 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;847438I live in a bad neighborhood as well, if that helps your theory.
Crappy apartments and bad neighborhoods are like ham 'n eggs. Which means it probably doesn't help since both tend to correlate to the same causes.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 08, 2015, 12:55:42 PM
Quote from: RandallS;847418I have to think that there may be a simple reason why people did not consider a level in which one only gained hit points to be a dead level in OD&D, B/X, and even 1e but they do in more modern versions today. I think hit point inflation is the major reason hit points are no longer seen as a major benefit.  Another hit dice was a major increase in survival power compared to the monsters in OD&D/Greyhawk, B/X, or 1e.

In later versions of the game, monsters started getting more and more hit points, so another hit die for a character did not seem to be that much of an improvement. In older versions of the game that 4.5 average increase in hit points for a fighter actually did mean the fighter could successful take on monsters he could not before. As the hit points for monsters inflated, that 4.5 hit point average increase started meaning less and less compared to the monsters. That is, the increase in hit points no longer really enabled the character to do noticeably better in the game (as it had in early editions).

Good analysis.  In OD&D every hit die is a BIG FUCKING DEAL.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 08, 2015, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;847419Hit Point increases are still important, even if you don't get special skills or abilities with a level.

Dead Levels never really troubled me. Maybe I am simply used to it but when I first started hearing complaints about this, I never really understood the concern.

Or maybe you're not a whiny-ass little crybaby.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 08, 2015, 02:20:35 PM
My problem with only HP is that all classes get HP when they level and spellcaster classes get spells on top of that. You can make a fighter get interesting and better abilities as they gain levels but that's a fairly new concept where game design is concerned.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 08, 2015, 02:24:22 PM
I love playing OD&D fighters.  I can do anything I want related to fighting, instead of looking at a god damn character sheet full of restrictions.

Anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.  The OD&D fighter is the most fun to play because he can do anything.

The problem is not the rules, it is unimaginative players and shit referees.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 08, 2015, 02:44:39 PM
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847501I love playing OD&D fighters.  I can do anything I want related to fighting, instead of looking at a god damn character sheet full of restrictions.

Anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.  The OD&D fighter is the most fun to play because he can do anything.

The problem is not the rules, it is unimaginative players and shit referees.

This is true of any edition of the game. Some games are more punitive than others on doing certain actions, however, like in 3e almost everything provokes AoO but if you don't use or care about it, then you're fine. Can't there be both cool widgets AND free-form to do whatever I want?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on August 08, 2015, 02:46:35 PM
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847501I love playing OD&D fighters.  I can do anything I want related to fighting, instead of looking at a god damn character sheet full of restrictions.

Anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.  The OD&D fighter is the most fun to play because he can do anything.

The problem is not the rules, it is unimaginative players and shit referees.

Thing is, even with the goodies some editions of D&D give out (except maybe 4e, it did say you could, but it did give the impression you shouldn't, of course, that could also be my reading of it) there has been no editions that say you can't.  And there was nothing in the rules disallowing you to not replicate the 'powers' or improvised actions.

But then again, there seems to be a lot of gamers out there that if it's not on the character sheet, you can't do it.  Again, despite nothing in the rules saying you can't.

I do admit that during my AD&D phase I was like that, ironically 3.x changed my view of it.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on August 08, 2015, 02:53:13 PM
More hit points is never something "meh," the way I look at it.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Phillip on August 08, 2015, 03:02:09 PM
I've got no complaint, but if it's something you don't like (and you basically like the game otherwise) then suit yourself.

If you can identify what you're missing, what "level-up" goodies you want, no problem.

If it's hard to think of what to add, though, then you might be happier with the little effort of calling the upsetness too much ado about what is on closer examination nothing.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: The Butcher on August 08, 2015, 04:32:35 PM
Quote from: Orphan81;842752The Level where pretty much nothing on your character sheet changes except for Hitpoints, and if you're lucky maybe a save..

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;847509More hit points is never something "meh," the way I look at it.

This. Hit points are often not as plentiful in TSR/OSR versions as they are in WotC editions, and level advancement is slower to boot.

Getting +1d6 permanent HP is a big deal.

Sure, magic-users and thieves get +1d4, but then they also get better at their specific schticks with every level.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on August 08, 2015, 04:36:33 PM
Quote from: The Butcher;847530Hit points are often not as plentiful in WotC editions as they are in TSR/OSR versions, and level advancement is slower to boot.

Getting +1d6 permanent HP is a big deal.

Sure, magic-users and thieves get +1d4, but then they also get better at their specific schticks with every level.

Now, imagine having a Fighter type and seeing that the Thief or Magic User/Cleric got something, and all you did was roll your die.  Not everyone is cool with that.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Armchair Gamer on August 08, 2015, 04:46:03 PM
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847501I love playing OD&D fighters.  I can do anything I want related to fighting, instead of looking at a god damn character sheet full of restrictions.

Anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.  The OD&D fighter is the most fun to play because he can do anything.

The magic-user and the cleric can do the same thing--and, a few times each day, can tell the laws of physics and the All-Powerful DM to sit down, shut up, and acquiesce to the written word.

Now, in OD&D, BX and BECMI, this is less of an issue due to the very short spell lists. When you hit AD&D/3E's "Magic Can Do Anything and Everything" philosophy, the fighter starts looking a lot paler in comparison.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: kosmos1214 on August 08, 2015, 04:50:48 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;847534The magic-user and the cleric can do the same thing--and, a few times each day, can tell the laws of physics and the All-Powerful DM to sit down, shut up, and acquiesce to the written word.

Now, in OD&D, BX and BECMI, this is less of an issue due to the very short spell lists. When you hit AD&D/3E's "Magic Can Do Anything and Everything" philosophy, the fighter starts looking a lot paler in comparison.

very true after all what would the fighter look like if he had a few shiny red buttons to push?

my guess is he would not look nearly as under powered
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Phillip on August 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;847532Now, imagine having a Fighter type and seeing that the Thief or Magic User/Cleric got something, and all you did was roll your die.  Not everyone is cool with that.

I reckon that's become a big issue because the MU isn't facing the original probability of being dead instead. Hit points are understandably 'meh' if they've been made irrelevant rather than the thin line between good to go and in the grave. The cleric's old powers are not so flashy, and while it starts out as "a fighter plus" -- albeit less so at 1st level in Original or Basic --  the fighter shines later.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 08, 2015, 05:15:48 PM
Quote from: Phillip;847536I reckon that's become a big issue because the MU isn't facing the original probability of being dead instead. Hit points are understandably 'meh' if they've been made irrelevant rather than the thin line between good to go and in the grave. The cleric's old powers are not so flashy, and while it starts out as "a fighter plus" -- albeit less so at 1st level in Original or Basic --  the fighter shines later.

I've never played D&D prior to 2e AD&D and from what I've gathered, MU was a difficult class to play due to the difference between them and other classes. In that light, HP is a far bigger deal and a lot more helpful to those who go through their HP like Fighters do.

In later editions, like 3e and PF, wizards are far easier to play by sheer amount of spells they have access to. Not only do they get a LOT of spells but their lower level ones still hold relevance because they scale with caster level. The fighter, on the other hand, might get some feats and a bonus to hit but when the attack progression remains constant to CR, you know by then that your first attack will have a 60-70%,chance to hit, your second attack will have a 45-55% chance to hit and the third (or fourth) is more or less hoping for a crit chance.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on August 08, 2015, 05:17:09 PM
Quote from: Phillip;847536I reckon that's become a big issue because the MU isn't facing the original probability of being dead instead. Hit points are understandably 'meh' if they've been made irrelevant rather than the thin line between good to go and in the grave. The cleric's old powers are not so flashy, and while it starts out as "a fighter plus" -- albeit less so at 1st level in Original or Basic --  the fighter shines later.

I never found that, in the admittedly few games of Red Box I played.  If anything, once all the henchmen were down, odds are the party wiped pretty quickly at lower levels.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Phillip on August 08, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;847538I never found that, in the admittedly few games of Red Box I played.  If anything, once all the henchmen were down, odds are the party wiped pretty quickly at lower levels.

Whatchutalkinbout, Willis? No apparent coherent relation to what I'm talking about.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: The Butcher on August 08, 2015, 05:42:28 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;847532Now, imagine having a Fighter type and seeing that the Thief or Magic User/Cleric got something, and all you did was roll your die.  Not everyone is cool with that.

Don't play a fighter?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: RandallS on August 08, 2015, 06:42:57 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;847534The magic-user and the cleric can do the same thing--and, a few times each day, can tell the laws of physics and the All-Powerful DM to sit down, shut up, and acquiesce to the written word.

They have never been able to do that in ANY RPG I have ever ran. Of course, I inform all potential players up front that the rulebooks are merely guidelines for the GM in any game I run. No player can successfully tell me "to sit down, shut up, and acquiesce to the written word" of the rules. Not even a Tier 1 character in 3.x. In my games, the GM far outranks the game designer and his rulebooks. Those who object are free to find another game. I advise all GMs to run their gamers this way -- that way they do not need to put up with min-maxers and rules lawyers.

QuoteNow, in OD&D, BX and BECMI, this is less of an issue due to the very short spell lists. When you hit AD&D/3E's "Magic Can Do Anything and Everything" philosophy, the fighter starts looking a lot paler in comparison.

The length of the spell list isn't the real limitation, it's the fact that characters only have access to the spells they find in the game in older versions of D&D. There can be thousands of spells in the rulebooks (and I believe there were in 2e by the time all the splat books were published), but only those the GM places in the campaign world can be found and used by the PCs. Also, there are many other limitations on spell-casters in TSR D&D that the designers of 3.x eliminated (foolishly, IMHO). Change saving throws to work like they did in TSR D&D, remove "concentration" from the game so that spell-casters who are hit in combat loose the spell they were trying to cast, prohibit spell-casters from moving if the are casting (no free 5 foot step), and the like (as it was in TSR D&D) and spell-casters would no longer so dominate the game.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: RandallS on August 08, 2015, 06:44:05 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;847538I never found that, in the admittedly few games of Red Box I played.  If anything, once all the henchmen were down, odds are the party wiped pretty quickly at lower levels.

This is probably true if they are attacking everyone and everything they encounter.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 08, 2015, 06:56:10 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;847532Now, imagine having a Fighter type and seeing that the Thief or Magic User/Cleric got something, and all you did was roll your die.  Not everyone is cool with that.

I 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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 08, 2015, 07:05:32 PM
Quote from: The Butcher;847546Don't play a fighter?

Or play a version where the fighter suits your needs??
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on August 08, 2015, 07:12:55 PM
Quote from: RandallS;847557This is probably true if they are attacking everyone and everything they encounter.

Bree-yark, s'all I gotta say on that.  And ow.  Lot's of ow.

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.

Oh, I agree.  Personally, I like some buttons to play with when I'm playing a Fighter, but I can totally see that it's not for everyone.  And quite frankly, I've played games in which everybody gets a myriad of buttons (as you call them) to play with, some of those work, some do not.

It's really a matter of taste, and I respect that.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: The Butcher on August 08, 2015, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: Batman;847566Or play a version where the fighter suits your needs??

The choice of system not always being the player's, I can concede that this may be an impossibility. In fact, I've had to specifically tell a couple players that they could feel free not to attend our OD&D sessions, because the lethality was so frustrating to them.

Me, I enjoy being the biggest lump of meat in the room. :)

That didn't come out right, now, did it.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bren on August 08, 2015, 07:51:57 PM
Quote from: The Butcher;847530Hit points are often not as plentiful in WotC editions as they are in TSR/OSR versions, and level advancement is slower to boot.
I don't think this says what you meant to say.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: The Butcher on August 08, 2015, 08:41:45 PM
Quote from: Bren;847588I don't think this says what you meant to say.

Duh! :o Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: jibbajibba on August 08, 2015, 11:09:59 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 08, 2015, 11:23:26 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Omega on August 09, 2015, 12:02:42 AM
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".
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 09, 2015, 01:38:55 AM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Haffrung on August 09, 2015, 10:02:40 AM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 09, 2015, 10:17:24 AM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Armchair Gamer on August 09, 2015, 12:13:17 PM
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. ;)
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Christopher Brady on August 09, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
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?
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 09, 2015, 04:12:24 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: GreyICE on August 09, 2015, 06:56:48 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Orphan81 on August 09, 2015, 09:31:05 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 09, 2015, 09:51:04 PM
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.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: jibbajibba on August 09, 2015, 10:37:14 PM
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.....
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Gronan of Simmerya on August 09, 2015, 10:48:19 PM
If you wish you could indeed put it that way.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Batman on August 09, 2015, 11:19:49 PM
Quote from: Orphan81;847775After 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.

I agree, and add to the fact that a +1 to attack rolls is a significant boost to your character unlike in 3.x and to a lesser extent 4e. All in all, a pretty good system.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Omega on August 10, 2015, 12:33:17 AM
Quote from: Orphan81;847775After 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.

That is kinda how it was with AD&D as well, a some classes got something at level 2 and then X levels later something else. The fighter got an extra attack at levels 7 and 13. Just about everyone got something around level 9. Paladins got some powers at levels 2-3-4 and so on. While rangers got stuff at later levels and the casters and thieves were constantly improving what they did but did not gain much of anything "new". Which was perfectly fine with me. New spells or slots is NOT a dead level.

In BX clerics did not even get spells till level 2.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Bloody Stupid Johnson on August 10, 2015, 07:03:23 PM
Quote from: Orphan81;847775After 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.

Well I concluded you can't make everyone happy.

As well as the people who want a pony every level and the people who don't care one way or the other, its clear there are people who actually don't want stuff every level. Some of them specifically to piss in my Cheerios, but in among the old school flapdoodle there's a mostly legit complaint that in order to give someone a special ability every level, requires a game have a complexity above a certain level i.e. in most cases to give someone an ability to do something there has to be a rule that without that ability, they can't do it.

Admittedly 5E IMHO actually isn't too bad for this (rulings not rules and all that), there are a few places where they've stolen a basic ability and sold it back at an exorbitant rate like your ranger needing to get to Level 2 before his left hand gets a Strength bonus, but its not too bad. In part I guess they've filled up the progression by giving virtually everyone some spells, or equivalent usage-limited powers.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: jibbajibba on August 10, 2015, 10:15:08 PM
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;847966Well I concluded you can't make everyone happy.

As well as the people who want a pony every level and the people who don't care one way or the other, its clear there are people who actually don't want stuff every level. Some of them specifically to piss in my Cheerios, but in among the old school flapdoodle there's a mostly legit complaint that in order to give someone a special ability every level, requires a game have a complexity above a certain level i.e. in most cases to give someone an ability to do something there has to be a rule that without that ability, they can't do it.

Admittedly 5E IMHO actually isn't too bad for this (rulings not rules and all that), there are a few places where they've stolen a basic ability and sold it back at an exorbitant rate like your ranger needing to get to Level 2 before his left hand gets a Strength bonus, but its not too bad. In part I guess they've filled up the progression by giving virtually everyone some spells, or equivalent usage-limited powers.

one of the problems with D&D's class model going right back to the introduction of theives and rangers is that there is a belief that every new class needs its own cool powerz and you need a class for every niche character idea.

So they could have introduced a tracking skill and you could get that skill as a fighter if you sold out something else, say access to heavy armour. Then you could have rangers without the need to generate a slew of new stuff for the new class thet then meant you needed a slew of new stuff for fighters to keep them at parity.

So the complaint about complexity growing out of too many class abilities is really one about too many classes with too many abilities more than it being about needing dead levels to prevent characters getting too complex.

I much prefer a simpler common pool of rather mundane powers and skills PCs can dip into as they level. 5E manages this approach with Feats rather well I think.

Add to this unique powers for individual PCs that come from the game world and i think you have the perfect mix.
All barbarians turning into bears at 8th level is no where near as evocative as your own Barbarian developing the abilty to turn into a bear as a gift for completing a quest for his bear spirit guide.

I know encouraging DMs to think outside the box, use their imagination and innovate is a litle radical and detracts from a clean corporate product but I am fairly sure you could wrap some rules round "Developing Unique Powers for PCs" as part of the DMG advice.
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Moracai on August 11, 2015, 03:18:01 AM
Quote from: jibbajibba;847989I know encouraging DMs to think outside the box, use their imagination and innovate is a litle radical and detracts from a clean corporate product but I am fairly sure you could wrap some rules round "Developing Unique Powers for PCs" as part of the DMG advice.

Well put!
Title: "Dead" Levels
Post by: Omega on August 11, 2015, 07:01:29 AM
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;847966Well I concluded you can't make everyone happy.

Its worse than that.

Even if you filled up every level there would be those who can and will bitch that some aspect isnt a "real" level filler.