Over chocolate-rum-bunnies and coffee last night (don't ask, a spring-time Easter candy-making experiment went deliciously wrong), George and I were discussing levels. I then went on a rant against leveling in RPGs...at that point, it just seemed levels were overused everywhere in every game, as an easy way to describe character power, and too often, a tool used in an exclusionary way.
Levels are everywhere. Most every MMORPG has them, and not only that, your gear itself has levels. So not only do you have to keep up with the Jones', you have to make sure your gear keeps up to the Jones' gear. And if you have ever tried to raid with under-leveled gear, and people told you, "Dude, your gear is too low level" - you know. This is true in 4th Edition D&D as well, your character has levels, and the game expects your character to have similarly leveled gear. We ran many games where an under-geared character just suffered through encounters, and it hurt. Motivation? Maybe. But when you start to see the math through the veil, it becomes trite (just like an MMO).
Facebook games have levels, some just exist as an endless progression of levels ad-nausea, with my level 700 gangster being owned by gangs of level 1100+ thugs. I don't know what the difference between a level 400 gangster and a level 700 one would be, level alone a level 2000 one. Games also suffer from level creep, with higher level limits meaning 'more fun' up there, with legendary and epic level rules a requirement, and rules for becoming a god the de-jour of RPGs. Who says gods are high-level characters? If you look at traditional mythology, some gods were created by accident or happenstance, and others by blood relation alone.
The original AD&D had a section as I recall where they tried to clear up all the things they used level with, character levels, dungeon levels, spell levels, and so on. It makes me miss the day where maybe characters and spells had levels, and oh yeah maybe dungeons had something similar, and that was it. We didn't need to have gear levels, or gear progression, my 20th level fighter could use a +2 longsword and chain-mail, and be just fine. Not every high level character was lucky enough to have them; and more importantly, they failed saving throws and were fragile at times. Nobody assumed you needed magic items with pluses equal to your level divided by five in all gear slots, you didn't fall behind in DPS or ability, and your saving throws were good enough.
Of course, times change, and of course my character needs a +4 ring of protection, and a cloak of protection, and gauntlets of strength; and wouldn't it be cool if we could have better ones only higher-level characters could use? Let's give that gear a level requirement, or a 'suggested' level for use, and design our encounters around having level-appropriate gear. And we don't want to upset players, so don't take away prized gear, and some games even allow players to pick the next magic items they will find.
Honestly, I'm not sure there is an answer here. It just seems using a numerical level to rate everything has become the easy way to describe something. SBRPG itself is guilty as well, with levels for hazards, characters, difficulties, and faction attributes. We never had gear levels, preferring to just design magic items straight powers, and you live with it. If those x-ray glasses let you see through 500 hits of wall, so be it. If the sword you found gave you an extra 2d6 ice damage, fine. Nothing guaranteed you finding anything else like one; and it was never said the referee needs to create ice swords that go from 2d6 all the way up to 10d6, in 2 dice increments.
Levels themselves are fine. Overusing them is lazy design. It is something to be aware of, and also something to ask "is there a better way?" If you are twisting your design to fit into a level system, something may be wrong. If you need to rate everything from items to conversations in levels, and you can't think of a more natural way to express your game mechanics, something may be amiss. Stop, think, and reflect a bit...is there a better way to rate this than a number?
No comments:
Post a Comment