Many DMs and players have strong ideas on what level a campaign should begin on. But what level should it end on? I don't imagine most players would want to work all the way to level 20.
I don't really see 20 as the ultimate end goal. Seeing it as such is a very gamist mentality. Levels, while important to games like D&D, do not represent the narrative's advancement. This is true in any game where on can not simply rely on where they are in the character advancement to judge how "complete" they are as a character.
>>44054239
This post
>>44054253
speaks the Lord's words. The campaign dictates the ballpark ending level.
>>44054253
This is true.
The older the get, and the more experience I have gaming, the less important "levels" (and classes for that matter) seem.
>>44054239
My online campaign of just under a year just concluded, and we went from level 5 to level 25 in 4e. I could have mechanically gone further, but that place in the story was very much the appropriate end. Essentially I agree with>>44054253
However, I might add that you can mitigate the>>44054239
>I don't imagine most players would want to work all the way to level 20.
Problem by taking the same philosophy to leveling up. It doesn't work in games like 2e, where XP tables for different classes are a major part of the balancing scheme, but in later games, it's easier to have a flat class-level that goes up when the plot demands it. IT cuts down on bookkeeping, players trying to roleplay for experience instead of for their character's motivations, and captain-NEET being infinitely more powerful than "has a weird schedule Jim" because he can always show up.
Having completed a year-and-a-half-long 5e campaign, I can say level 11 was a fine ending point.
Casters had fun stuff with their level 6 spell slots, the Fighter had his third Extra Attack and TORE SHIT UP.
The story of a group of adventurers should end not when they have reached a particular level but rather when they have all reached the end of their character development and tied up any loose ends remaining in their personal stories.
>>44054420
While overall I agree with the idea of flat leveling up, I still think there should be some sort of bonus for good RPing or not missing sessions. How will you encourage behavior that you like without the possibility of reward?
>>44057268
If getting to come and play a game you enjoy with your friends and have epic escapist adventures isn't reward enough to justify actually coming and actually playing, then I've not done my job as a DM.
>>44054239
Games usually break well before level 20. Playing at level 1 can be a bit lame. Back when I was playing Pathfinder my DM would start us off at level 3-5. I don't think we ever got over level 12, though it could have gone a bit further.
>>44054420
>IT cuts down on bookkeeping, players trying to roleplay for experience instead of for their character's motivations, and captain-NEET being infinitely more powerful than "has a weird schedule Jim" because he can always show up.
I've had positive experiences with DMs running characters of absent players. It's nice to not have to run without a cleric or fighter just because someone couldn't make it that night. DM just has to make sure not to fuck the character over in the player's absence, because that would really suck.
>>44057268
RP can be rewarded with plot, items, etc.
Never heard of a problem with players not showing up just because they didn't feel like it.
>>44054515
This, DnD gets progressively more retarded and broken the further you go past lvl 10
