Level with me here, why do we need em? (levels that is)

[Caid]

Having recently bought Shadowrun 4, found that I really liked the level and class less system. I have now been considering what it would take to combine the core DnD 3.5E task resolution mechanic with a class and level-less advancement scheme.

In short, abilities scores, BAB, saves etc would be bought for XP with increasing cost per point and skills, spells, special abilities etc would be bought similarly under the constraint of prerequisites. My approach would be to basically take level 1-5 from the classes I like, extract the special abilities and class features, and then try to assign XP costs based on how much XP it takes to reach that particular level.

I'm not a game designer by trade, so I felt I need some help finding the weaknesses and problems of such an approach. Specifically, somebody must have attempted similar things before, what happened and why did it loose out to the level based systems that are typical in DnD and D20?

[hogarth]

Having recently bought Shadowrun 4, found that I really liked the level and class less system. I have now been considering what it would take to combine the core DnD 3.5E task resolution mechanic with a class and level-less advancement scheme.

In short, abilities scores, BAB, saves etc would be bought for XP with increasing cost per point and skills, spells, special abilities etc would be bought similarly under the constraint of prerequisites. My approach would be to basically take level 1-5 from the classes I like, extract the special abilities and class features, and then try to assign XP costs based on how much XP it takes to reach that particular level.

Mutants & Masterminds (and its fantasy off-shoot Warriors & Warlocks, I assume) essentially works this way.

[Murtak]

Levels are an abstract measurement of power. They are useful if you want a measure of "can my party handle this encounter?" and similar questions. As such, levels are particularly useful when the potential for character advancement is large. DnD adventurers range from barely-above-farmers to multiverse-destroying monstrosities. Levels are quite useful here, so you can pick appropriate challenges.

Shadowrun on the other hand ranges from street level punks to world-class criminals. That is a large range, but on a DnD scale it would correspond to levels 3 to 5. Your gangers will certainly fail to break into a military research facility, but they will fail by degrees. They will not have enough firepower, be not stealthy enough or have enough resources for a diversion. Contrast with a level 3 DnD party attempting to assassinate a Duke of Hell. They won't even know where to start.

Summary: A big power range makes levels useful.

[Caid]

@hogarth Thanks for the tip! From the review of MnM, it seem it has done some interesting things that I'll see if I can use. Damage saves instead of hit points for instance is something I see would greatly reduce book keeping around the table for large fights.

@Murtak Ok, I understand your point about levels as a way to assess party capability. I'd actually much rather run the Shadowrun power level of campaign, so maybe doing away with them won't complicate encounter design too much.

[endersdouble]

Another interesting point is that with levels, it's harder for a player to fuck up his character royally. Assuming well designed classes, a Rogue 7 is going to have useful abilities. If you're not very good, you might buy useless skills and powers for your thief-themed character with 100 BP.

On the same note, levels and classes are often less work for the player.

[RobbyPants]

@Murtak Ok, I understand your point about levels as a way to assess party capability. I'd actually much rather run the Shadowrun power level of campaign, so maybe doing away with them won't complicate encounter design too much.

Have you heard of E6 before? It's basically D&D with a level cap of 6. Perhaps you might combine something like that with your SR level-less mechanic.

Also, it keeps you from having players put eleventy billion points into one stat to otherwise break the game.

[Caid]

Have you heard of E6 before? It's basically D&D with a level cap of 6. Perhaps you might combine something like that with your SR level-less mechanic.

Also, it keeps you from having players put eleventy billion points into one stat to otherwise break the game.

Now that you mention it, I recognize the abbreviation, but I didn't know exactly what it meant. Considering I was going for what would then be based on "E5", it warrants looking into I suppose.

My idea for how to keep players from buying insane stat levels is twofold:

1) By letting the point prize grow exponentially, they just won't afford the "insane" levels too early

2) By assigning multiple prerequisites to powerful special abilities, I hope to promote well rounded balanced characters.

Another interesting point is that with levels, it's harder for a player to fuck up his character royally

This is not normally a problem in my group as we allow people to rebuild their characters if they're not happy. Even so, the option is rarely used as most of us have been playing tactical games 20+ years and generally manage to stay away from completely hopeless characters.

[Psychic Robot]

People like levels because it gives them a feel of accomplishment. It's also a D&D trope.

Another interesting point is that with levels, it's harder for a player to fuck up his character royally

Not really. A fighter decides he's going to dabble in the mystic arts, so he takes a few levels of wizard. Now he's worse than a fighter or a wizard of his level.

Level-less systems pretty much prevent character sodomy because characters can always spend their XP to learn new things if they want to.

[Caid]

People like levels because it gives them a feel of accomplishment. It's also a D&D trope.

I think this is less true for my group of players as the RPG we grew up with here in Sweden - Drakar och Demoner - was both level- and classless.

[K]

The only games that I've played that claim to be level-less are Shadowrun and various WoD games, and I can say that they indeed do have levels.

Shadowrun has Iniation, which is a very basic level system where you just better than everyone else who has not initiated.

WoD has the limited level system of go up in ranks of a single Disciple or whatever. It's not a surprise that a level 5 power makes a level 1 power look small in the the pants.

Now, both games have the option of taking your XP and setting them on fire and not leveling. In Shadowrun, you can just be a cyber-sam who spends more and more Karma on skills and spends nuyen on marginally small increases to power while the mages just get better and better. I see that as a flaw to the system.]

The point of a level system is to keep powerful abilities reasonably balanced among different characters. I mean, no one want to be the guy who just spent XP on driving his car a few dice better and have to sit next to the character who just gained the ability to summon elementals big enough to fight small armies?

Levels also model the heroic arc, where the crap-covered farmer becomes a king over a series of adventures.

[Crissa]

Levels also solve the problem of glass cannon in Mutants and Masterminds. A player can't really know what the range of the difficulties will be, but when you create levels for your game, you can.

-Crissa

[Caid]

Still I think that such a situation shouldn't arise suddenly. Some group members would notice how their performance was deteriorating and then take corrective action when they get enough XP.

[Crissa]

No, that appears at character creation. You walk onto the field and realize everyone else is playing a different game than you.

It does no one any good to have the Paladin auto succeed every save, even ones that autokill everyone else.

-Crissa

[A Man In Black]

Mutants and Masterminds does have explicit levels. They're just caps on how high you can buy up your to-hit, damage, defenses, etc. You just don't have to buy up to the cap, like K said, and you can set your XP on fire buying lots of small or irrelevant bonuses.

[hogarth]

Mutants and Masterminds does have explicit levels. They're just caps on how high you can buy up your to-hit, damage, defenses, etc. You just don't have to buy up to the cap, like K said, and you can set your XP on fire buying lots of small or irrelevant bonuses.

If you define "level" in a sufficiently nebulous manner, then sure. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that says the cap on attacks, defenses, etc. must go up over time as the PCs gain experience, which is what I think of when I hear "level".

[Kaelik]

Mutants and Masterminds does have explicit levels. They're just caps on how high you can buy up your to-hit, damage, defenses, etc. You just don't have to buy up to the cap, like K said, and you can set your XP on fire buying lots of small or irrelevant bonuses.

If you define "level" in a sufficiently nebulous manner, then sure. But there's absolutely nothing in the rules that says the cap on attacks, defenses, etc. must go up over time as the PCs gain experience, which is what I think of when I hear "level".

Actually, there kind of is. It says for every 15 whatever points (XP?) PL increases by 1.

[Crissa]

And the 'levels' in M&Ms don't have minimums, either.

-Crissa

[Username17]

And the 'levels' in M&Ms don't have minimums, either.

-Crissa

Which is weird. Minimums are the primary benefit to having levels in the first place. Having the PCs have a bonus that is "too big" so they automatically succeed is a minor problem. May not even be a problem if there are still other things to do. Something the GM planned as a challenge turns out to just be a stage to show how badass the PCs are - like fighting Wolverine. Having a PC with a bonus that is "too small" such that they automatically fail - that's a problem. It means that something happened to th PC that was totally unfair - and that's a recipe for hurt feelings.

-Username17