|
|
Post by steelhand on May 6, 2022 9:21:47 GMT
Just joined the board, so why not enter the lists by uttering a rank heresy! How important is level progression?
I recently came across a post on some forum or blog (I don't recall where unfortunately) by a fan of "Holmes D&D", who was suggesting the 3-level cap in that version could be seen as a feature, not a bug.
Formal level progression would stop at 3 and after that character development would happen in in-game terms through acquisition of wealth, power, knowledge, gear and so on.
I find this quite appealing, although it may seem more natural to me as I have some background in Classic Traveller, where there was only minimal in-game PC development in formal rules terms.
For an example of the issue this is supposed to address, I really like a lot of things about the d20 Call of Cthulhu game. But it seems odd to me that a Level 10 50-yr-old librarian PC can pretty reliably defeat a 20-yo Level 1 soldier. Of course this can be rationalised in all sorts of ways - a lucky punch or whatever - but these kinds of plot-armour arguments always feel a bit shonky to me (plus, how many lucky punches can you expect?)
The implicit assumption here is that level progression always means more effectiveness in combat through attack throws or hit points. That need not necessarily be the case admittedly.
Anyway there it is - feel free to shoot it down in flames!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Fox on May 6, 2022 23:09:35 GMT
I prefer a level cap at around 10. Often games don't get that high and if they do, it is more about buying property and hiring henchman at that point. Level 3 might be a little minimalist for me in mechanical terms, but I understand why people would like it if the focus is more on role-playing. AS for your example, 50-years old is not old! There are a few (not many) Olympic athletes who compete at that age. Some of the greatest Karate masters and so forth are in the 60s. So, if the PC is physically training on a regular basis, they could still be doing pretty well at that age. But you do raise a reasonable issue if the PC in question is a librarian - presumably someone who does not engage in physical training - unless it is common for a Cthulhu type librarian to regularly battle sprites and bats literally escaping the pages of dusty books... So, it all depends on whether this librarian has some kind of regular physical training - daily practice at the target range with guns, karate classes, and so forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by evilscientist42 on May 7, 2022 6:36:12 GMT
For an example of the issue this is supposed to address, I really like a lot of things about the d20 Call of Cthulhu game. But it seems odd to me that a Level 10 50-yr-old librarian PC can pretty reliably defeat a 20-yo Level 1 soldier. Of course this can be rationalised in all sorts of ways - a lucky punch or whatever - but these kinds of plot-armour arguments always feel a bit shonky to me (plus, how many lucky punches can you expect?) That's Indiana Jones in the Crystal Skull movie  I've never played d20 CoC, though, I'm perfectly satisfied with standard Chaosium Call of Cthulhu (7th ed. at this point), it fits the style and "power level" of the game well. The Pulp Cthulhu variant is good for higher-powered characters. I recently came across a post on some forum or blog (I don't recall where unfortunately) by a fan of "Holmes D&D", who was suggesting the 3-level cap in that version could be seen as a feature, not a bug. Formal level progression would stop at 3 and after that character development would happen in in-game terms through acquisition of wealth, power, knowledge, gear and so on. Level 3 feels too early for me to stop in a D&D-style game, mostly because of the spell levels. Unless you stick to what's available in Holmes, and tie higher level spells exclusively to magic items that the characters have to acquire in-game. However, I strongly agree with you on the emphasis placed on in-game developments, acquisitions... In one of my current campaigns, the party explored an ancient forge, and now plan to re-ignite it to craft magic items. They are around level 3 right now, so mechanically not too strong, but they will try to organize the whole process inside the game, hire trustworthy people, look for resources, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by steelhand on May 7, 2022 18:02:28 GMT
Haha, yes you're right about Crystal Skull Indiana Jones!
One of the things I like about CoC d20 (and would love to borrow for a swords-and-sorcery setting) is that it completely abandons the D&D spell-level system. Spells basically cost damage to cast - mostly attribute point damage and Sanity damage. This has a strong impact in a 3rd edition game given the nature of the system and the widespread application of attribute bonuses, whereas it wouldn't have the same impact in OD&D. However Sanity and maybe some sort of corruption effect could be more of a penalty in OD&D.
I like the idea of tying spells to magic items and in-game action.
|
|
|
|
Post by Night Owl on May 18, 2022 17:08:06 GMT
Haha, yes you're right about Crystal Skull Indiana Jones! One of the things I like about CoC d20 (and would love to borrow for a swords-and-sorcery setting) is that it completely abandons the D&D spell-level system. Spells basically cost damage to cast - mostly attribute point damage and Sanity damage. This has a strong impact in a 3rd edition game given the nature of the system and the widespread application of attribute bonuses, whereas it wouldn't have the same impact in OD&D. However Sanity and maybe some sort of corruption effect could be more of a penalty in OD&D. I like the idea of tying spells to magic items and in-game action. CoC d20 is underrated. The only problem with it is that weird layout with the diagonal margins making it a bit hard to read. Other than that I though it was a fantastic translation to d20! |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Apr 18, 2023 10:09:21 GMT
Like Tim Fox, I prefer a cap around level 10. Part of my rationale is that levels were given names up to a certain point, another reason is that in Warriors of Mars Gygax caps at 12 and only John Carter can advance to 13. That resonates with me somehow. My scale: Levels 1-3 = Flunky Levels 4-7 = Heroic Levels 8-11 = Super Heroic Level 12 = Mythic Level 13 = John Carter  With a soft level cap at 10, that leaves levels 11-12 for those evil wizard bad guys the party wants to defeat. |
|
dbaymiller
New Member
https://theosrlibrary.blogspot.com/
Posts: 25
|
Post by dbaymiller on Jun 7, 2023 19:48:58 GMT
I run several genres of Old D&D/OSR games. I prefer a level three cap for my 'realistic' games such as gritty westerns, my own OSR Cthulhu games, etc. I use it as a Hit point cap. To hit, saves, skills, etc continue to advance, usually to 10th level or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Night Owl on Jun 15, 2023 20:01:46 GMT
I find levels 1-10 to be the most fun and engaging play experience. After level 10 the power gets so high it becomes increasingly difficult to run the game. But I do think the true strength of D&D is the race+class+level mechanic. My only gripe with B/X & BECMI is that it conflates race & class.
Games that do not have levels like Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, and GURPS (which I also like, btw) become increasingly fiddly as players advance and try to optimize their character. Classes and Levels channels the characters for optimal gameplay - and the GM can better build exciting adventures knowing what the character's capabilities are. There is just something really compelling about striving to reach that next level.
So I do think levels are essential to the core of D&D.
|
|
