Especially if it was Hulks and Horrors?
Right now, H&H Core goes to 6.
My publisher wanted to see more, so I was planning to expand to 12, but now it looks like I'll be self-publishing, so I don't have to do that anymore.
I think 6 is actually a pretty good number the way the game is written, if you want to keep things low-powered, and there are optional rules in the back to go past that and keep getting new HP and to-hit bonus at least, but no new spells, and the present monster scaling kinda caps out at 8HD meaningfully speaking.
What about you folks? I'm on the fence about it, personally.
I would have no problem with it. :)
Also, if you're current top monster is at 8 HD then it seems logical to cap it out at level 6.
I'm willing to try out anything one of my buddies is willing to DM. I do not, however, have a need to DM a 6 level clone.
I see that you are capping hit dice at 8. To use the AD&D power scale, will spells and such be compressed into the fewer levels? So, at 6th level will a character be able to cast 9th level spells? Will a first level character have access to magic items normally given to 3rd level? Will the chance to hit be also compressed? Or were you just saying you were planing on keep the same scale, but not include anything beyond the standard AD&D level progression? Just wondering how you were approaching it.
Yeah, I prefer lower powered games in general.
I'm also starting to prefer shorter campaigns... not these things that go on year after year.
Quote from: Kuroth;623681I see that you are capping hit dice at 8. To use the AD&D power scale, will spells and such be compressed into the fewer levels? So, at 6th level will a character be able to cast 9th level spells? Will a first level character have access to magic items normally given to 3rd level? Will the chance to hit be also compressed? Or were you just saying you were planing on keep the same scale, but not include anything beyond the standard AD&D level progression? Just wondering how you were approaching it.
At present, there are basically, in traditional terms, three spell levels, and then it just stops. The optional rules for going past 6 extend the amount of spell points you get and allow for learning some new spells, as well as advice on adjusting their effects to scale with level a bit, so they stay relevant.
Adjusting the monster hit die scaling is trivial (I'm actually working on it in another window right now), but I feel like if I went to 12 completely, I'd want to include at least two more spell levels worth of abilities there.
Yeah, I wouldn't have an issue. If I was really going to do long-term play instead of a shorter campaign arc, I might have to look at alternate progression, but that would be something I'd have plenty of time to work out. In short, not a deal-breaker.
I've played in very few games where any player reached sixth level, so it doesn't bother me.
Starships & Spacemen 2e was only going to go to level 8 or something, but I complained about that for one main reason: compatibility.
By sticking as close to old school D&D norms as possible, it's much easier to borrow things from it and vice-versa.
Only six levels sounds like a feature rather than a bug to me.
I sort of like it, and not from an E6 comparison, but thinking about when players start to develop more powerful PCs in TSR-era D&D. It's a good cut-off point if those are the systems inspiring H&H and you want something that remains somewhat gritty.
I like the spell levels ending there, actually.
Quote from: FASERIP;623715I sort of like it, and not from an E6 comparison, but thinking about when players start to develop more powerful PCs in TSR-era D&D. It's a good cut-off point if those are the systems inspiring H&H and you want something that remains somewhat gritty.
I like the spell levels ending there, actually.
It was pretty directly inspired by B/X, and the level cap is actually an artifact of the original intention to do a Basic/Expert type split for H&H as well, with 1-6 in one book, and 7-12 in a second expansion. Over time this evolved into a "Core/Expansion" set splits, because I realized that as written, 1-6 seemed like a very good level range in fact, one that gave a uniquely low-powered split while still being roughly compatible, at least in range, with B/X, just not the CMI sets.
Yes, I would, because ...
Quote from: smiorgan;623701Only six levels sounds like a feature rather than a bug to me.
... and ...
Quote from: everloss;623696I've played in very few games where any player reached sixth level, so it doesn't bother me.
Regarding magic:
Quote from: J Arcane;623686At present, there are basically, in traditional terms, three spell levels, and then it just stops.
With just 6 character levels I would change a bit at the distribution of the spells. I'd give the M-U more 1st level spells. But that's something that I can easily houserule.
So instead of this:
(http://theevilgm.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/add-spell-progression.jpg?w=627)
I'd rather have this:
[B][U]Level 1 2 3[/U][/B]
1 3 - -
2 4 - -
3 4 1 -
4 4 2 -
5 4 2 1
6 4 2 2(The M-U capacity at level 5 and 6 is the same, but the spell progression is more spread out. I never understood why a M-U had to start with one measly spell while at later levels he got up to four new slots at once.)
(This gives me the opportunity to let thieves learn one or two first level spells at a later level if they want to go the Grey Mouser route, and still be inferior to the weakest real sorcerer.)
You'll design a better game if your heart's in it 100%. 6 levels seems fine to me.
In fact, why not have half-levels so people can go up more slowly?
The way you could do this is divide characters' abilities into, say, Dungeoneering and Fighting. Fighting would cover hit-rolls, hit points and weapon proficiencies. Dungeoneering would cover saving throws, thief skills, non-weapon proficiencies and spells. So your progression could be for instance:-
0 XP = level 1 Dungeoneering & Fighting
1,000 XP = level 2 Dungeoneering, level 1 Fighting
3,000 XP = level 2 Dungeoneering, level 2 Fighting
6,0000 XP = level 3 Dungeoneering, level 2 Fighting
10,000 XP = level 3 Dungeoneering, level 3 Fighting
etc.
Edited to add:- actually probably better to let them go up in Fighting levels first, as getting 2nd level HP quickly will help survivability for low-level characters of all classes.
Quote from: J Arcane;623670if you want to keep things low-powered, and there are optional rules in the back to go past that and keep getting new HP and to-hit bonus at least, but no new spells, and the present monster scaling kinda caps out at 8HD meaningfully speaking.
If you're capping out the spells at 3rd level i.e. 5th level spellcaster and the monsters at 8 H.D., then post-6th HP progression should be 1 HP per certain amount of XP for all classes. This does allow magic-users to seem to catch up with fighters eventually but this is mitigated by the fact that they're not getting any snazzy new spells. Magic-users could also get extra spells/day.
I think it could be a neat system.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;623827*snip*
For reference, the scientist table looks like this:
Level Charge Programs
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1 2 2
2 4 2
3 6 3 1
4 8 3 1
5 11 4 2 1
6 14 4 2 1
Woodland Warriors goes to level 6.
I am currently working on a game with 6 levels only, so the answer is 'yes'.
Quote from: Zachary The First;623687Yeah, I wouldn't have an issue. If I was really going to do long-term play instead of a shorter campaign arc, I might have to look at alternate progression, but that would be something I'd have plenty of time to work out. In short, not a deal-breaker.
for long term wasn't there a d20 variant that only went to lvl 6 then from that point forward it was just feats added on... I think it was called E6 or something like that. could use it for inspiration
Sure, why not.
Switch out the lvl numbers and give each level a title and nobody will ever need to know or care about it only having 6 levels, plus it'll give you a reason to use the old school named levels trope in a different way.
I have actually been thinking about adding title names. It's an old school touch that's often missed.
Considering how much people actually play today, I say 6 levels is just fine.
I would not max monsters though. Perhaps if you figured out the max creature a group of six 6th level badasses could face at full force. Maybe that would be the max. It's fine for there to be the Moby Dicks of the setting who even the greatest heroes fear.
My fantasy retrowhatever is going to 10th level, but my scifi retrowhatever is being aimed for 6 levels with multiclassing options and "prestige" levels possible for some characters.
I think I may actually rejigger the monster scaling to go up to 12 in the example tables, just so GMs have the numbers there, and because it'll rebalance the lower HD monsters to be a little less threatening right out the gate.
I've also been debating codifying the post level 6 ranks in a sort of "alternate level" type thing, sort of like what I did for stats over 20.
My personal feeling is that 6 levels is not enough. In my groups at least, it feels like the game is at its most interesting between levels 4-14 or so.
My albion game is definitely at its coolest phase so far, and the PC group are levels 5-7. In your game, if its only 6 levels, that would be the end point, and for my group we wouldn't feel ready for that end yet.
RPGPundit
Quote from: J Arcane;623670Especially if it was Hulks and Horrors?
Right now, H&H Core goes to 6.
My publisher wanted to see more, so I was planning to expand to 12, but now it looks like I'll be self-publishing, so I don't have to do that anymore.
I think 6 is actually a pretty good number the way the game is written, if you want to keep things low-powered, and there are optional rules in the back to go past that and keep getting new HP and to-hit bonus at least, but no new spells, and the present monster scaling kinda caps out at 8HD meaningfully speaking.
What about you folks? I'm on the fence about it, personally.
Personally, I'd feel like it was crippleware (even if it wasn't), though thats admittedly a bias from many such products over the last decade. I'd much prefer a game that wanted to focus on "low level" play exclusively to do away with levels altogether.
Fuck it.
You wrote Hulks & Horrors and based on the quality of your posts here, I'd buy it. Doesn't matter how many levels it has.
Quote from: jeff37923;624213Fuck it.
You wrote Hulks & Horrors and based on the quality of your posts here, I'd buy it. Doesn't matter how many levels it has.
Ditto.
I think level 10 is a better stopping point.
It is interesting to me the difference in response between the three places I posed this query.
G+ and here were almost universally positive, while Facebook was quite negative.
Still, the consensus seems to be that it would be OK if done well and with room for extrapolation, and while I've not fully decided, it does easy my mind some. ^^
yes. but with such a limited range of levels, i would want some kind of defined end game in the form of a specific thing to be achieved post level 6.
I would generally like to see more Dee-and-Dee-based games use level ranges to calibrate playstyle. Want a relatively low-powered, human-level experience? Use the E6 range. Tolkienish fantasy? E8. Want everyone to start out as competent adventurers? Begin on the 3rd level. Want heroes? Start on the 6th.
Personally, I like to make a system that delivers the type of gameplay I'm after. So, if six levels works well and plays how you want, why not.
For my (fantasy) clone the levels 4-16 are where PCs will spend most of their time, so a lot of work went into opening up options/ stuff for PCs to get involved in going beyond low level 'survival' mode.
Adding level mechanics wasn't the tricky, time-consuming part. Presenting/ offering PCs places/ events/ motivations that scale with level increases was much more work.
Quote from: Zachary The First;623687Yeah, I wouldn't have an issue. If I was really going to do long-term play instead of a shorter campaign arc, I might have to look at alternate progression, but that would be something I'd have plenty of time to work out. In short, not a deal-breaker.
This is one of the advantages of not using levels, long campaign arcs are much more focused on the plot, character development, setting and actual campaign than on advancing character powers. The idea that the game will run into problems just because the characters can't pick up new powers seems a bit too (meta)mechanically focused to me.
Quote from: Melan;624375I would generally like to see more Dee-and-Dee-based games use level ranges to calibrate playstyle. Want a relatively low-powered, human-level experience? Use the E6 range. Tolkienish fantasy? E8. Want everyone to start out as competent adventurers? Begin on the 3rd level. Want heroes? Start on the 6th.
Ya, I'm fine with thinking of levels in this way, especially in setting where the characters are head and shoulders above most. So it would be like this for players. "Tonight we are playing a 10th level game. Please roll up appropriate 10th level characters." That sort of thing.
Concerning the over all topic of the thread, I would rather a game compact 18 levels of AD&D1 into 6 levels, rather than just getting rid of the higher levels. So, 6th level would be very powerful. I use AD&D1 just as an example. I don't see any reason to dump all of those cool adventure options, when the intent is to streamline, increase campaign pace or facilitate more energetic one session adventures. I enjoy the low levels, which is where we all have spent so much time, but one can always make adventures specific to a level range, as Melan suggests.
I would play a game that is only the standard 6th levels, though. After all, the old Holmes edit book is just 3 levels, barely that really, and it can last and last.
Quote from: Melan;624375I would generally like to see more Dee-and-Dee-based games use level ranges to calibrate playstyle. Want a relatively low-powered, human-level experience? Use the E6 range. Tolkienish fantasy? E8. Want everyone to start out as competent adventurers? Begin on the 3rd level. Want heroes? Start on the 6th.
The idea was to keep the player characters within a reasonable power level. Stopping at 6 gave them enough room to become competent, but without getting especially powerful, so that exploration remained dangerous without having to resort to altered leveling like post-lvl9 in some versions of vintage D&D.
Quote from: J Arcane;623670I think 6 is actually a pretty good number the way the game is written, if you want to keep things low-powered, and there are optional rules in the back to go past that and keep getting new HP and to-hit bonus at least, but no new spells, and the present monster scaling kinda caps out at 8HD meaningfully speaking.
My Microlite74 Swords & Sorcery Edition only goes to level 6 and I haven't had any complaints. Like the E6 stuff for 3e there are ways to pick up additional stuff once you hit level 6, but your days of jumping to entirely new levels of power basically stop at level 6.
Quote from: Omnifray;623838You'll design a better game if your heart's in it 100%. 6 levels seems fine to me.
In fact, why not have half-levels so people can go up more slowly?
If you do that, your system now has
eleven levels; Dungeoneering and Fighting both start at 1, and cap out at 6, for a total of ten increases. Add one for first level. Eleven.
I am currently tweaking the spell lists to scale with level by default, and I think between that, and the included "extended level" rules in the GM's section, that should be sufficient to allow for expansion beyond the lvl 6 baseline, while still keeping the same default, especially if I also tweak the monster stats a bit towards a 12 HD upper threshold.
Basically, as written, the formulas for statting monsters cap out with a maxed to-hit roll at 8d12 hit dice. I am going to adjust the formulas a bit so that it hits that point at 12d12 instead. This will make the lower level stuff feel a bit more properly low level, as the previous system used 10 as the baseline value for a lot of things, which made lvl 1 a very scary time indeed.
On the flipside though, that may be a good thing ... ;)
In reply to the OP:
Yes, I would play such a game.
Why?
Because gaining levels is never a goal of mine as a player.
I do not enjoy gross disparities in level/capability in the same group of characters however.
But I see no problem with a game going from level 1 to 6.
It is really an advantage in my opinion.
Quote from: Melan;624375I would generally like to see more Dee-and-Dee-based games use level ranges to calibrate playstyle. Want a relatively low-powered, human-level experience? Use the E6 range. Tolkienish fantasy? E8. Want everyone to start out as competent adventurers? Begin on the 3rd level. Want heroes? Start on the 6th.
See, honestly, no. I don't think that's the way to go. I think the better way to go is to have a game that accommodates and accounts for different levels of experience, and then leaving it up to the GM to decide where he wants the cutoff to be in his campaign. I think this makes for a much more useful game product.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;626229See, honestly, no. I don't think that's the way to go. I think the better way to go is to have a game that accommodates and accounts for different levels of experience, and then leaving it up to the GM to decide where he wants the cutoff to be in his campaign. I think this makes for a much more useful game product.
I thought he meant that the game would include guidelines for playing the game in the given ranges within a full game treatment. Somewhat like a level free point based game where one selects the number of points available to buy features based upon the power level. If it is as you described, ranges isolated in different products, that would be not so great, yes.
How it works is this:
All the classes are directly described up to level 6.
"Spell" levels are provided up to level 3 or equivalent.
Monster Hit Die tables are tuned such as to hit a save of 20 at 12d12HD, but the upper limit is limited largely by whenever the math breaks and starts pumping out critters with all 20s.
An optional rule is provided in the GM's chapter to advance characters beyond level 6, by providing guidelines on adding hit points, to-hit bonus, and additional spell points and stat points as said levels continue, though for simplicity's sake the level curve flattens from 7 on at 64k per, and there are still no additional spells beyond level 3 (though all spells now scale with levels somewhat, so they'll hopefully remain useful).
There is also an optional rule on handling stats higher than the default cap of 20.
Quote from: Kuroth;626231I thought he meant that the game would include guidelines for playing the game in the given ranges within a full game treatment. Somewhat like a level free point based game where one selects the number of points available to buy features based upon the power level. If it is as you described, ranges isolated in different products, that would be not so great, yes.
Correct. It has always been a possibility in D&D - but GM advice to this effect wasn't included in the game rules. OD&D and 1st edition at least acknowledged there was an endgame phase where things would slow down (name level, settling down and managing a barony), but others just assume "once an adventurer, always an adventurer", when there are actually pretty radical changes in the kind of play character power accommodates.
A lot of beef people have with D&D disappears once you start characters at 3rd level (where they aren't chewed up by aggressive housecats), and retire them at 9th or 12th (where they really start to run away with power, and serious balance issues start to crop up). Even "I can't make Conan" goes away when you understand that Conan is not a separate character class, he is a high-level PC.
But isn't this all obvious? In hindsight, it is. But it wasn't obvious to me until I learned it the hard way.
Many will rake me through the coals for saying this, but I consider it less than ideal game design, in general, to have too many 'levels'. Especially when you combine many levels with bad math.
For example, dndn nee dnot go to level 30.
Rolemaster need not go to level 50.
But, I am biased because I don't really like insane disparity in charcater power level.
10 'levels' is more than enough, in my opinion.