Dead Levels

[bestialwarlust]

So I read a bit about the new d&d when I'm really bored. One of the biggest complaints I keep seeing is "dead" levels. Do I and my game group exist in a vacuum? I've never had this complaint when we played 1e/2e/classic/od&d.

Since when did dead levels become a concern? The sentiment seems to be "I leveled where's my new kewl pwrz?!!" Is this new or has this been around for a while and I just missed it?

[geoffrey]

The closest I can think of is that Len Lakofka did a Dragon article back in the early 1980s (IIRC) that smoothed-out the to-hit tables and saving throw tables. So, for example, instead of a fighting-man's saving throws vs poison looking like this:

fighting-man 1-3: 12
fighting-man 4-6: 10

they look instead like this:

fighting-man 1: 12
fighting-man 2: 12
fighting-man 3: 11
fighting-man 4: 10
fighting-man 5: 10
fighting-man 6: 9

[cadriel]

Once you start to look at D&D as primarily a "character build" game - which was heavily promoted in the 3.x years because it sells supplements - then character levels with no built-in bonuses take away from the fun, since they add nothing to your character build.

If you look at it as a dungeon/wilderness exploration game, none of this matters. A smoother progression is something that a referee can do, or not, without really changing much.

[bestialwarlust]

That's what it seems to be now. At first I thought it was just me and getting old

But I guess however you fun playing is all that matters.

[Ghul]

I remember years ago when I noticed the little note in the DMG (p. 74) under the fighter's combat matrix that allowed for a per level increase in fighting ability as opposed to every other level.

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2012 10:44:20 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

That's what it seems to be now. At first I thought it was just me and getting old

But I guess however you fun playing is all that matters.

If they are whining and complaining, it doesn't sound like they are having much fun.

Are we talking about OD&D or is this thread about something else?

[Stormcrow]

Maybe "dead levels" means levels gained after you are dead. As in, "I'm playing a 3rd-level corpse."

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2012 10:17:08 GMT -6 cadriel said:

Once you start to look at D&D as primarily a "character build" game - which was heavily promoted in the 3.x years because it sells supplements - then character levels with no built-in bonuses take away from the fun, since they add nothing to your character build.

If you look at it as a dungeon/wilderness exploration game, none of this matters. A smoother progression is something that a referee can do, or not, without really changing much.

Well said.

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2012 11:52:56 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Maybe "dead levels" means levels gained after you are dead. As in, "I'm playing a 3rd-level corpse."

HAR!

[bestialwarlust]

Dec 18, 2012 11:46:48 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

Dec 18, 2012 10:44:20 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

That's what it seems to be now. At first I thought it was just me and getting old

But I guess however you fun playing is all that matters.

If they are whining and complaining, it doesn't sound like they are having much fun.

Are we talking about OD&D or is this thread about something else?

More about OD&D. I was just curious if this is a new thing or if there were complaints of this BiTd

[talysman]

There are no dead levels, only dead heroes.

Yeah, the people whining about dead levels are new schoolers. There's technically no level when a fighter doesn't gain anything, because fighters get a new hit die every level. Magic-users get a new spell slot every level. I haven't analyzed clerics, but assuming there were a cleric level where they didn't get an extra spell, hit die, or saving throw increase, some spells increase in effectiveness for those of higher level. Also, turn undead increases every level.

[Ghul]

This thread reminds me of something that happened at a con recently. In the game, a particularly hairy situation arose that required some negotiation, or things were going to turn violent. One of my players (an avid Pathfinder player) was scanning his character sheet, flipping it over, re-reading it, and then he asked me, "Doesn't my character have any skill in diplomacy or intimidation?"

I replied, "How big is your guy, what's his strength?"

"Six feet, 16 strength," he answered (or something like that).

"Okay, just tell me what you say to the man. You can either explain to me what your character is saying, or you can role-play it -- doesn't matter to me, either way."

The dude could not handle it. He wanted his character to be able to resolve the situation without him (the player) actually saying or doing anything. He wanted to make a charisma check with a d20 and be done with it, since his character "had no skills".

I'm not sure what really defines old school vs. new school mentality, but it seemed that this fellow and I had reached a philosophical (gaming philosophical) impasse.

[monk]

Dec 18, 2012 10:17:08 GMT -6 cadriel said:

If you look at it as a dungeon/wilderness exploration game, none of this matters. A smoother progression is something that a referee can do, or not, without really changing much.

I think this is a great point. My players tend to be thinking of things to do "in game", not what's going on mechanically with their character sheets. I try to reinforce that attitude whenever possible.

[benoist]

Dec 18, 2012 10:17:08 GMT -6 cadriel said:

Once you start to look at D&D as primarily a "character build" game - which was heavily promoted in the 3.x years because it sells supplements - then character levels with no built-in bonuses take away from the fun, since they add nothing to your character build.

If you look at it as a dungeon/wilderness exploration game, none of this matters. A smoother progression is something that a referee can do, or not, without really changing much.

Very astute.

It's been building progressively over decades (AD&D Unearthed Arcana adding weapon specializations and the like, the Complete... series of AD&D 2nd edition, the Skills & Powers books, being other examples that led to 3rd edition).

Also, (1) the fact that D&D spawned computer RPGs and that then computer RPGs really picked up with personal computing, advances in technology, graphics, platforms etc to create a feeback loop where D&D's designers picked up components of game play from these games, and the general gaming population and evolution of expectations regarding games in the gaming culture(s), and (2) that the publisher of 3rd edition created an extremely successful building game in the form of Magic the Gathering prior to the revision of the game in 2000, both need mention.

[tombowings]

But there are no real dead levels in TSR D&D, really. You do gain something after every level.

It's called...wait for it...TREASURE. If hiring an army isn't enough power, I'm not sure what is.

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2012 12:44:18 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

Dec 18, 2012 11:46:48 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

If they are whining and complaining, it doesn't sound like they are having much fun.

Are we talking about OD&D or is this thread about something else?

More about OD&D. I was just curious if this is a new thing or if there were complaints of this BiTd

Not BiTd that I was part of. Never of heard the term or the concept before.

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2012 18:23:07 GMT -6 Ghul said:

This thread reminds me of something that happened at a con recently. In the game, a particularly hairy situation arose that required some negotiation, or things were going to turn violent. One of my players (an avid Pathfinder player) was scanning his character sheet, flipping it over, re-reading it, and then he asked me, "Doesn't my character have any skill in diplomacy or intimidation?"

I replied, "How big is your guy, what's his strength?"

"Six feet, 16 strength," he answered (or something like that).

"Okay, just tell me what you say to the man. You can either explain to me what your character is saying, or you can role-play it -- doesn't matter to me, either way."

The dude could not handle it. He wanted his character to be able to resolve the situation without him (the player) actually saying or doing anything. He wanted to make a charisma check with a d20 and be done with it, since his character "had no skills".

I'm not sure what really defines old school vs. new school mentality, but it seemed that this fellow and I had reached a philosophical (gaming philosophical) impasse.

That is very sad, when someone has been stripped of their imagination.

[bestialwarlust]

Dec 18, 2012 18:23:07 GMT -6 Ghul said:

This thread reminds me of something that happened at a con recently. In the game, a particularly hairy situation arose that required some negotiation, or things were going to turn violent. One of my players (an avid Pathfinder player) was scanning his character sheet, flipping it over, re-reading it, and then he asked me, "Doesn't my character have any skill in diplomacy or intimidation?"

I replied, "How big is your guy, what's his strength?"

"Six feet, 16 strength," he answered (or something like that).

"Okay, just tell me what you say to the man. You can either explain to me what your character is saying, or you can role-play it -- doesn't matter to me, either way."

The dude could not handle it. He wanted his character to be able to resolve the situation without him (the player) actually saying or doing anything. He wanted to make a charisma check with a d20 and be done with it, since his character "had no skills".

I'm not sure what really defines old school vs. new school mentality, but it seemed that this fellow and I had reached a philosophical (gaming philosophical) impasse.

This I can believe when my group tried 3.0 for a while I noticed that shift they started referencing the sheet to see what they could do instead of just using thier imaginations like they did when we played earlier editions.

This is one of the many reasons I stopped running 3.0 games very shortly after we started.

[Deleted]

I ran a 3.x campaign from close the the very beginning so I saw the whole development of the dead level idea from the start, when it was but an occasional post on ENworld. I found the actual opposite to be true. One of the characters in my game was a Druid which in 3e gets something just about every level (wildshape, spells and other special abilities). I noticed that she would gain all these abilities and, before she could actually use them all in the game, she had already gained another level. And I was giving out 2/3 of the recommended XP so I they weren't gaining levels as fast as they should have been.

I was hoping that 4e would increase the power of the feats (some were all but useless) and halve the number they gave out. Instead both 4e and Pathfinder both went the new-thing-every-level route which, I guess, is why I'm here instead of on wizard's pathfinder forums.

[cooper]

Dec 18, 2012 18:23:07 GMT -6 Ghul said:

This thread reminds me of something that happened at a con recently. In the game, a particularly hairy situation arose that required some negotiation, or things were going to turn violent. One of my players (an avid Pathfinder player) was scanning his character sheet, flipping it over, re-reading it, and then he asked me, "Doesn't my character have any skill in diplomacy or intimidation?"

I replied, "How big is your guy, what's his strength?"

"Six feet, 16 strength," he answered (or something like that).

"Okay, just tell me what you say to the man. You can either explain to me what your character is saying, or you can role-play it -- doesn't matter to me, either way."

The dude could not handle it. He wanted his character to be able to resolve the situation without him (the player) actually saying or doing anything. He wanted to make a charisma check with a d20 and be done with it, since his character "had no skills".

I'm not sure what really defines old school vs. new school mentality, but it seemed that this fellow and I had reached a philosophical (gaming philosophical) impasse.

To be fair, although you are perfectly in your right to make up a rule adjudicating the situation then and there, 0d&d does have a reaction table used for interactions and a note about it being modified by character actions. The difference between 0d&d and 3e isn't a lack of such rules, but that the rules are universal and are disasociated from character building/levels.

In 3e you have "individual perception" in 0e you have a surprise mechanic. In 3e you have an individual diplomacy and intimidate that a player can customize and fidget with, in 0e a reaction table. Your player might have accepted the table where he perhaps balked at what appeared to be you making up a rule right there.

[Ghul]

Dec 20, 2012 11:05:01 GMT -6 cooper said:

Dec 18, 2012 18:23:07 GMT -6 Ghul said:

This thread reminds me of something that happened at a con recently. In the game, a particularly hairy situation arose that required some negotiation, or things were going to turn violent. One of my players (an avid Pathfinder player) was scanning his character sheet, flipping it over, re-reading it, and then he asked me, "Doesn't my character have any skill in diplomacy or intimidation?"

I replied, "How big is your guy, what's his strength?"

"Six feet, 16 strength," he answered (or something like that).

"Okay, just tell me what you say to the man. You can either explain to me what your character is saying, or you can role-play it -- doesn't matter to me, either way."

The dude could not handle it. He wanted his character to be able to resolve the situation without him (the player) actually saying or doing anything. He wanted to make a charisma check with a d20 and be done with it, since his character "had no skills".

I'm not sure what really defines old school vs. new school mentality, but it seemed that this fellow and I had reached a philosophical (gaming philosophical) impasse.

To be fair, although you are perfectly in your right to make up a rule adjudicating the situation then and there, 0d&d does have a reaction table used for interactions and a note about it being modified by character actions. The difference between 0d&d and 3e isn't a lack of such rules, but that the rules are universal and are disasociated from character building/levels.

In 3e you have "individual perception" in 0e you have a surprise mechanic. In 3e you have an individual diplomacy and intimidate that a player can customize and fidget with, in 0e a reaction table. Your player might have accepted the table where he perhaps balked at what appeared to be you making up a rule right there.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear -- I use reaction table rolls quite often, though when the situation is OBVIOUS I will hand wave after considering the circumstances and after applying some common sense. Now, what happened in this situation I cited, the fellow could not conceive anything for his character to do or say -- he wanted a die roll to determine that, with a fixed difficulty level against the die roll.

For me to reference the reaction table and make a roll, I typically need to player to give me something; e.g, "What does your character do or say?" But he didn't want anything to do with that. He wanted the character to resolve the situation without any actual player involvement.

Typically I will reference the reaction table after the player explains what his characters says/does, or RPs it. If they do a good job of it, or touch on something that I feel will help convince the antagonist, I will give a bonus to that reaction roll.

Anyway, I should have been more specific, Cooper. Thanks!

[jjarvis]

If your campaign doesn't have lots of 0-level men at arms to slay fighters can be a bit dull every now and then 3rd, 5th and 6th level can be a bit dull.
2nd is exciting; when else does a fighter hp likely to increase by 50% or more.

[runequester]

Dec 18, 2012 20:45:07 GMT -6 tombowings said:

But there are no real dead levels in TSR D&D, really. You do gain something after every level.

It's called...wait for it...TREASURE. If hiring an army isn't enough power, I'm not sure what is.

That's a really good point. Even when you max out your level (hobbits in OD&D are a real risk here), you can still "improve" by finding better items.

[Chainsaw]

Dead levels prove that OD&D is broken. The sooner you fold in kewl powerz equally at every level, the better your game will be. Trust me.

[grodog]

When I saw the thread title, I was thinking "dead [dungeon] levels" and was curious about what that meant---whether they were duds, had too much empty space, or were actually dead (vs. living vs. undead) in some manner, which then of course set all sorts of wheels in motion....

[Ghul]

Dead levels prove that OD&D is broken. The sooner you fold in kewl powerz equally at every level, the better your game will be. Trust me.

Fin, we need to add in the opposite of "Exalt" . . . maybe "Condemn"? ;D

Just for chainsaw!

[talysman]

Dec 21, 2012 12:18:51 GMT -6 Chainsaw said:

Dead levels prove that OD&D is broken. The sooner you fold in kewl powerz equally at every level, the better your game will be. Trust me.

*Only* every level? Try every tenth of a level. If you don't power up at least three times a session, your game is lame. I want to be able to fight ten Demogorgons and 12 Tiamats simultaneously after a month of play.

[Chainsaw]

Dec 21, 2012 12:36:29 GMT -6 talysman said:

Dec 21, 2012 12:18:51 GMT -6 Chainsaw said:

Dead levels prove that OD&D is broken. The sooner you fold in kewl powerz equally at every level, the better your game will be. Trust me.

*Only* every level? Try every tenth of a level. If you don't power up at least three times a session, your game is lame. I want to be able to fight ten Demogorgons and 12 Tiamats simultaneously after a month of play.

HAHAH! Awesome.

/shakes fist at Ghul

[kenmeister]

What I find most interesting about the TSR and WOTC D&D dichotomy, is that while in the latter your character sheet gets so much more added to it each level, in the former your character can do so much more in the world, thanks to the shorter power curve.

[bestialwarlust]

Dec 24, 2012 12:57:14 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

What I find most interesting about the TSR and WOTC D&D dichotomy, is that while in the latter your character sheet gets so much more added to it each level, in the former your character can do so much more in the world, thanks to the shorter power curve.

Plus the imagination factor. Players don't look at the "menu" to choose a character action. Instead they use thier imaginations.