D&D crpg levels

[Gromnir]

nwn allowed players to reach 'round level 18 or so in 50+ hours. too many? many of you were thinking so. one reason given for fast levels in nwn were fact that you got only 1 character to improve... as 'posed to 6 in the ie games. reasoning goes that it is taking no more time from game to level 1 character 18 times in nwn than it is to level 6 characters 10 or 12 times in BG2. number of level opportunities for a player in nwn is probably actually less in nwn than bg2... maybe even in bg1. does that make a difference? the majority of posters on the bg2 boards did complain that levels were too slow in BG1.

 

alternatively, perhaps there is a leveling speed that is simply too quick for you to be able to maintain illusion that your character is a D&D character? the 1 character v. 4 or 6 character explanation not mean much to you?

 

nwn2 will allow you to reach level... well, we don't know what level you will be able to reach. however, we has been told that a Gargantuan red dragon is gonna be part of game... something to show off capabilities of obsidian's engine tinkering. is it possible that after 20 hours o' gameplay our party o' four mights be able to battle such a beastie? assume for a second that such a confrontation is indeed possible in nwn2. is level 20 in 20 hours too many?

 

 

so, how many is too many... levels that is. take some gameplay time period at random... say, oh, 20? yeah, 20 is a nice complete arbitrary choice. how many levels should a d&d crpg character be able to gets in 20 hours, and does size of you party make a difference?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[deganawida]

yeah, 20 is a nice complete arbitrary choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Heh :D

 

  how many levels should a d&d crpg character be able to gets in 20 hours, and does size of you party make a difference?

 

I'd say no more than 10-12. That places it in the high end of the mid-levels (high levels, according to DMG, around 15 & 16, with 19-20 at very high), which is reasonable. I'd prefer in the arbitrarily-assigned limit of 20 hours capping at 8-10.

 

Regarding the Gargantuan dragon, I don't know. It could be a cameo, or there could be a "trick" to lower its CR.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I've always enjoyed the middle levels the most.

 

1 level per hour , thats a bit loopy.

[Llyranor]

Whatever feels appropriate for the story.

[Gromnir]

"Regarding the Gargantuan dragon, I don't know. It could be a cameo, or there could be a "trick" to lower its CR. "

 

agreed. deus ex machina is hardly unknown in in crpgs (the orb in nwn to helps with klauth is a particularly useful example,) and one might prefer if the Dragon in a 20 hour game were simply an npc beyonds reach... is maybe the character who gives you THE quest or somesuch. that being said, if you gots a dragon in a game, some people is gonna wanna have a chance to fight/kill it, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we would love it if Dragon were in game and fightable... but only as an arse kicking lesson. would love for once there to be an encounter in game where the measure of succes were not how quickly or easily defeated, but simply how little hurt you took before escape.

 

but back to the topic at hand...

Edited April 26, 2006 by Gromnir

[astr0creep]

1 level per hour of playing. On average.

Unlimited level cap.

[Gromnir]

1 level per hour of playing. On average.

Unlimited level cap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

does number of party members make a difference? level up 1 an hour 'posed to level 4 or 6?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[deganawida]

ps  we would love it if Dragon were in game and fightable... but only as an arse kicking lesson.  would love for once there to be an encounter in game where the measure of succes were not how quickly or easily defeated, but simply how little hurt you took before escape. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I take it no one listened to your ideas at the DA forums about that? I was in favor of your idea, but don't remember if I ever posted about it.

[Cantousent]

Well, I don't like to have characters much past level 12-14 in PnP. That's not because I like to pull the elitist card but because everything starts falling apart pretty dramatically within the ruleset by then. The stories become more forced and the opponents become more and more powerful. One day, I'll create a campaign meant to be played by super or epic level characters. As it stands, I prefer the mid to high level range. For me, that's somewhere between 9-15.

 

For a CRPG, however, I don't care. It really is a matter of how fun I find the game. However, if I had my preferrence, I'd like to have a complete game devoted to a significant low level story. I almost always feel as if the only point of the early game is to get the characters enough levels to be viable in the mid to late game. The only real exception that springs to mind is Oblivion, and that's because Bethesda made levels irrelevant.

 

The current convention sucks because it assumes that the only significant stories should be for high level characters. Fighting against goblins and saving a village goes by in a flash, but it should not. It should be a significant event with a build up in suspense. Too bad we're trained to think otherwise.

[Gromnir]

ps  we would love it if Dragon were in game and fightable... but only as an arse kicking lesson.  would love for once there to be an encounter in game where the measure of succes were not how quickly or easily defeated, but simply how little hurt you took before escape. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I take it no one listened to your ideas at the DA forums about that? I was in favor of your idea, but don't remember if I ever posted about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

seems that the no-win encounter were deemed unfit for gamer consumption by the powers that be at bio.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

"I almost always feel as if the only point of the early game is to get the characters enough levels to be viable in the mid to late game."

 

the first 3 levels of D&D is lethal. 'less you got some mechanic likes in ps:t wherein resurection and dying is somehow part of ordinary gameplay. you typically gotta cheat to keeps a low-level party alive. a single critical from a goblin with a bone knife will kills almost any 1st or 2nd level mage. and criticals is not all that uncommon.

 

is ways to deal with low levels, but d&d, played straight and 'ccording to the book makes first 3 levels mighty tough on players... and the dms trying to keep 'em alive.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[deganawida]

"I almost always feel as if the only point of the early game is to get the characters enough levels to be viable in the mid to late game."

 

the first 3 levels of D&D is lethal.  'less you got some mechanic likes in ps:t wherein resurection and dying is somehow part of ordinary gameplay.  you typically gotta cheat to keeps a low-level party alive.  a single critical from a goblin with a bone knife will kills almost any 1st or 2nd level mage.  and criticals is not all that uncommon. 

 

is ways to deal with low levels, but d&d, played straight and 'ccording to the book makes first 3 levels mighty tough on players... and the dms trying to keep 'em alive.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That, to me, is what makes the early levels truly epic, as opposed to the tacted-on, poorly-developed, and throroughly-munchkiny "Epic Levels" from the ELH. It is more emotionally gratifying, to me, to get knocked down by a lucky crit at level 1 and succeed on my stabilization check at -9 while my party tries desparately to kill the CR.25 goblins, than to handily dispatch a dragon.

[Enoch]

Eldar's in the right ballpark, although I'd shift it a bit lower, personally. The game is most fun when all the little various random events are roughly of equal importance. If the outcome of battles repeatedly come down to the same variable, it gets boring and frustrating.

 

Below level 4 or so, critical hit rolls are too powerful. Having your character be perpetually one unlucky roll from certain death can be very frustrating. As levels get really high (exactly where depends on how magic-heavy the campaign is), the saving throw becomes far too dominant.

 

As for how fast to advance, I'm awful at hour-counting in games. I can't really quantify the rate that would feel right to me. However, I've always felt that the D&D advancement system was a bit too granular. You get no improvement for a long time, and then a dramatic step forward all at once. This leads CRPG developers, who know that gamers want regular rewards for their efforts, to turn nobodies into world-beaters far too quickly.

[Gromnir]

low and high levels is both extremes. we can talk 'bout how kewl it is to has lethal combat that has you on edge for every roll of dice, but who wants to be the guy who gets killed by the goblin with the pointy stick... and then have to sit out the rest of the gaming session. sure, such stuff can happens at any level, but it happens LOTS at low levels.

 

at high levels... well, the opposite is the case. dice mean almost nothing. the results of combats is predestined. you got right equipment and correct spells for an encounter? yeah? then there ain't no mystery who is gonna prevail.

 

4-12... seems like the sweet spot for d&d rules.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That, to me, is what makes the early levels truly epic, as opposed to the tacted-on, poorly-developed, and throroughly-munchkiny "Epic Levels" from the ELH.  It is more emotionally gratifying, to me, to get knocked down by a lucky crit at level 1 and succeed on my stabilization check at -9 while my party tries desparately to kill the CR.25 goblins, than to handily dispatch a dragon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In a CRPG that mostly means hitting the reload button.

 

My favourite levels are 5-12 your not really going to die just from one unlucky roll. But at the same time you still have plenty of "normal" things that can challenge the character or party.

 

After 15 I tend to lose interest and want to settle down (and make a new character) , and I dont like epic levels at all.

[Gromnir]

ok, let us get focus back a little. regardless of what levels you thinks is best, is there an appropriate rate of leveling in a d&d crpg, and does size of your party somehow alter that rate?

 

HA! good Fun!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I dont think there is a hard fast rule for rate of leveling. It depends what else you have to do beyond gaining levels.

 

If you have a fully controlled party, then you probably dont need levels quite so quickly because you already have plenty of variety.

 

With a single character levels are the only thing you have to open up more combat options (and prevent it getting stale).

[Colrom]

I like 1 level every 3 hours of play.

 

That brings you to level 20 in 60 hours.

 

You could try 1 level every 2 hours.

 

That brings you to level 20 in 40 hours.

 

I find playing characters over level 20 a bit of a chore. They have so many special capabilities it becomes a pain just keeping track of what they can do.

 

Whatever the overall rate, it probably is better to advance the characters a bit faster at the start when the characters are brittle and then slow down as the characters become tough. :D

 

It doesn't matter how big the party.

 

The difficulty of the game should be scaled to the party size to give the same rate of increase.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Colrom

[Spider]

My instinct is to say something like 1 level/5 hours of play, with an exception in the early game where you need to level faster to get away from the pure randomness of it all.

 

However, the second part of Gromnir's question made me think. And I realized I've never played a single player game that levels that slowly. So obvioulsy that number is for a party based crpg. I do think it'd work for me in a single player game as well so I'll stick with it.

 

Of course, this is restricted to D&D, other systems will have different requirements.

[Volourn]

Persoanlly, 1 level per 10 hours will be cool. 1 in 3 is acceptable; but I expecte 1 in 1.5-2 is what we'll normally get. Except maybe not in NWN2 which if it is 20 hours it might end up in a 1-1 ratio.

 

Hmmm...

[Diogo Ribeiro]

For the most part I never felt character growth under the D&D ruleset, at least when applied to CRPGs, had to conform to a particular level. To me it was always more a question of balance in the sense of having enough levels, or other analogues of character growth and power, that were optimal in allowing characters to go through the game from beginning to end in a satisfying manner. In that context, I find Temple of Elemental Evil's low level cap to be perfectly reasonable, just as a level 20 cap was likely adequate for Neverwinter Nights. No game seemed to need more than that.

 

However, the rate is something else entirely and while I can't specify any particular lenghts, I can point out the first Baldur's Gate and Fallout as examples of a satisfying level rate. Having every level gained feel like a small victory in the face of tremendous adversity certainly contributed to it (and in a way this was more palpable in Fallout). Torment also seemed to have a good rate in the early levels.

[Volourn]

"Fallout as examples of a satisfying level rate."

 

Eh? I reached level 16 (I think that was the max) in about 20 or so hours. Not exactly a good rate of levelling.... espicially if you are going to compare it to BG which was 6-8 levels in 50+ hours (minimum)...

 

 

"Torment also seemed to have a good rate in the early levels."

 

Hmm.. I dunno about that. PST's levelling rate was on the fast end....

[metadigital]

nwn allowed players to reach 'round level 18 or so in 50+ hours. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NwN = finish with PC level 10-12

SoU = finish with PC level 19-22

HotU = finish with PC level 26-28

Well, I don't like to have characters much past level 12-14 in PnP.  That's not because I like to pull the elitist card but because everything starts falling apart pretty dramatically within the ruleset by then.  The stories become more forced and the opponents become more and more powerful.  One day, I'll create a campaign meant to be played by super or epic level characters.  As it stands, I prefer the mid to high level range.  For me, that's somewhere between 9-15.

 

For a CRPG, however, I don't care.  It really is a matter of how fun I find the game.  However, if I had my preferrence, I'd like to have a complete game devoted to a significant low level story.  I almost always feel as if the only point of the early game is to get the characters enough levels to be viable in the mid to late game.  The only real exception that springs to mind is Oblivion, and that's because Bethesda made levels irrelevant.

 

The current convention sucks because it assumes that the only significant stories should be for high level characters.  Fighting against goblins and saving a village goes by in a flash, but it should not.  It should be a significant event with a build up in suspense.  Too bad we're trained to think otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to agree with Eldar. Epic level characters tend to bend the rules to breaking point; I just don't think d20 gives enough granuality / resolution for higher level PCs, and NPCs seem to act outside the boundaries of the rulesets (the demon in HotU, for example, before the PC is sent to the frozen hell).

 

The main constraint is the level must be commensurate with the story; I can't tell for certain, but I'd bet London Bridge to a brick that the KotOR:TSL XP reward was increased (I'd say doubled), and I'd put double-or-nothing that it was to ensure that players could have PCs break the magic level 20 barrier that was so much bemoaned by the players of the forst KotOR.

 

The fact that one of my PCs had something in the order of 1500 hit points (or vitality, or whatever they were called) and some similar amount of magic ("Force" points) was patently silly. Just giving enemies more hitpoints doesn't make for a better fight: they need more battle skills, strategy and tactics, etc.

 

I think the level mechanism is far too clumsy to be used as the only means for escalating tension through the narrative.

[alanschu]

What is level 16 in Fallout compared to level 6-8 in D&D though?

 

When dealing with already arbitrary numbers, it doesn't make much sense to compare them with the arbitrary numbers of a different ruleset.

[Volourn]

"NwN = finish with PC level 10-12"

 

Huh? really? More like level 16-20

 

 

"SoU = finish with PC level 19-22"

 

Level 10 -14.

 

 

"HoU = finish with PC level 26-28"

 

 

 

"What is level 16 in Fallout compared to level 6-8 in D&D though?

 

When dealing with already arbitrary numbers, it doesn't make much sense to compare them with the arbitrary numbers of a different ruleset."

 

Well.. considering hat level 16 was/is upper high end for both rulesets and that I think its' fair to equalize them. The point is you level up rather quick in FO compared to BG1.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Volourn