Rob Hicks
IN SUMMARY:
10 levels. Preferably gaining levels about every 3-5 sessions, but advancing specific abilities or skills at the end of every session along the way. Also, don't forget to put weaker versions of the coolest abilities in the lower registers, and don't make the higher level characters unkillable by lower levels.
IN ESSAY FORMAT
From a game design philosophy perspective, character progression is important. For the story-driven characters, new capabilities, experiences, contacts and resources represent a concrete reward for overcoming challenges. Frodo and his hobbit buddies learned a lot from their adventuring, and brought back experience and skills that changed who they were and their role in the world. New abilities, skills, gear and levels represent that growth, and when they got home? They kicked ass. (Both skill and level systems accomplish this, so I'm not trying to re-open that discussion. (We actually use a combination of both.)
But Matt's question was how far should that scale? Are levels necessary, and if so, what should the range be?
To answer that question, I would put forth a few ideas that make that growth appealing, and to identify what I thought should go into that decision.
1. You don't HAVE to start at level zero, but you might want to.
One of the more frustrating/fun things about dnd 3e was how fragile those first level characters felt, especially the casters. I'm a Dark Souls player, and I don't mind having my characters die. There is a thrill in that kind of danger that goes away at about 5th level, when synergy kicks in and characters start getting stupidly powerful.
You could argue that not all players like that kind of fragility, which means there should be options for either starting at a higher level, or taking specific abilities that make them less likely to die. We wrote in an optional "Survivor" ability where a character could cheat death once per day, and a lot of players liked it.
2. Lower levels don't have to be boring.
One of the mistakes that dnd made was that a lot of the cooler abilities weren't even available until higher level. They later fixed this with expansion content and made it a little better in 4e, but it always bugged me that some of the more iconic abilities, invisibility, flight, etc, didn't kick in until higher levels. That is completely unnecessary.
Take invisibility, for example. Invisibility is a powerful mechanic, but that doesn't mean you can't have weaker versions of it available at lower level. We used a couple of variants for lower level effects, like one where you have to stay still, one that was opposed by perception checks, and another that only worked for a single action, rather than having a longer duration. Limitations can be placed on "higher-level" abilities without breaking the rest of the game system.
3. Higher levels can have weaknesses.
Lower level characters should probably be weaker than higher level characters, but that doesn't mean that higher levels should be immortal and untouchable. Constantly raising HP is usually the culprit for this, so we just standardized HP based on their endurance attribute, which has worked pretty well. They should have more options and be stronger, but not untouchable. In most cases, higher levels should mean higher stakes and MORE danger, not less. The only way that DND does this is by introducing insta-kill enemies, which were usually terrible.
4. Numerical gains are interesting... to a point.
Players like to see progress, and stats and bonuses are an interesting way to show that, but there is a point where it doesn't matter anymore. Players only really understand certain ranges of numbers. Most players won't notice the difference between a +6 and a +7 bonus, let alone a +13 vs +14. Numeric advantages should not be in large numbers, or they cease to matter. Mayhem uses 20 levels, but most of the action takes place between 1 and 10. If I were to do it again, I would consider just doing 10 levels.
Someone in Matt's thread mentioned that a level 3 character up against a level 3 enemy is basically the same thing as a level 10 character vs a level 10 enemy, which is often true, but a good GM will vary the difficulty of enemies over time so that things are a little more diverse than just a 1-1 ratio. Playing around in that range is a GMing trick that alternates challenge and power-fantasy in a way that keeps players engaged.
5. Consistent progress is important.
Waiting three sessions to level is, in my opinion, unacceptable. Players need to see progress every session to keep the best engagement. It doesn't have to be major, a few points here or there, or adding minor abilities each time, but there should be a slow progression. We use a combination of skill levels and level caps to grant new skills and minor abilities every session, but only raising the caps about every 3 sessions. It encourages diversifying and growing a character, and keeps people wanting to play each week.
That is the advantage of having a wider range, and a counter-point to #4. If players play regularly, they can burn through levels really quickly. A little longer game means players can stick with their favorite characters over time. realistically, however, very few players have the time to invest for a game of that length, and even if they do, a game should have enough rich character concepts that they have more than one archetype that they want to play through.
No comments:
Post a Comment