deaddmwalking wrote:shadzar wrote:there should NOT be some video game concept of group leveling at point X per the rules, it should ALWAYS be up to the group, and NEVER suggested otherwise.
Just to be clear, you're repudiating the entire concept of XP as presented, for example, in AD&D 2nd edition?
fixed it in my quote here and will fix it in the original post now.
what i am against is the concept that forced leveling as a whole should be done, even suggesting your "we just level when we feel like it" as a default under unified level progression tables.
the whole idea that XP or levels is ONLY a metric for calculating power rather than new horizons is my problem, like in video games where the level grind exists or in TTRPGs where people create the level-grind where it shouldn't exist.
i am fine with saying, here is an XP chart (not unified) of level progression, and somewhere else explain this is D&D heritage and why, and then saying you may level anyway and anyhow you like.
i just do NOT like the idea of a level based on stupid as the default. like 3 encounter per level in 3.x or 10 per level in 4th, or one session per level in DDN. this is just a supermassive railroad built into the core of D&D.
you should be level 5 after playing G1 if you want, and i should be level 2 after it if i want, both starting at level 1. if that makes you ready for G2 and wish to go with it, then you can, but likewise if i want to go with G2 next i can, or do something between G1 and G2. maybe another quest or adventure.
it should not be forced that you must play GDQ series in order and level up for the next one at the end of the last one. that is just a railroad. YOU should be allowed you DING moment to level when you want not be forced to wait, and i should be allowed to bypass the DING and hold at a lower level if i want rather than us both having to be forced to be level 3 at the end of G1 to force you into being ready to play G2, even if you don't want to play it next.
now do you understand where the "level per session" becomes a problem because it railroads the speed of the game, and the game will be designed around that railroad and the train only goes one way.
this is a problem with MOST adventures or series or APs is that they are in EVERY fashion a railroad with little adaptability.
assume this: a new player starts at level 1 and ends the session and is now level 2, but still isn't ready at the end of the next session for all the added things at level 3. then what? they cannot continue the AP or adventure series as a player even though their character is ready for it, because they don't know all the shit the game added yet.
will the optional rule of slower level progression of DDN be applied to adventures, or will adventures be designed with only standard level progression in mind so that new to D&D players or new to RPG, or new to DDN players are left in the dark and screwed unable to continue a series/AP/etc?
Previn wrote:Query: Are any of you who are advocating throwing away XP for ad hock leveling... new players/DMs, or are you all experienced players with a strong grasp of the rules and power levels?
i dont mind it as an older player, but it will screw up newer players that don't really understand what a class level represents. it isnt just MOAR POWAHZ! but also in modern D&D design it is increased complexity that is almsot exponential with each level.
this is why the people NOT wanting lots of crap to deal with in TSR D&D could always go with a fighter and jsut play, and those wanting lots of complexity and options to sort through played wizards.