Let me begin by saying that as much as I don't like any sort of level system, we all knew when we started D&D that it worked with levels so we shouldn't be shocked. I like 5e and I've played unleveled systems that I've enjoyed as well.
My question is why am I suddenly seeing videos from youtubers talking about taking D&D to a game without levels? Did someone lead a big panel about it somewhere that I missed out on or something? Did I click on one at random and now the Youtube RNG is steering all of these my way?
Depends on what you mean by "without levels". Are we talking something like a classless, point builder progression system a'la GURPS, Savage Worlds, or Cyberpunk?
If so: because those systems are better than level-based games. They just are. The entire essence of a tabletop RPG is making decisions. Players make decisions about their actions in the moment, they make decisions about how to use their limited resources (time, money, favor/influence), they make decisions about where to go, who to take with them, and what goals to set themselves to. The hallmark of the TTRPG is unfettered choice...and then you get a 'Ding', you get a new level, but you don't get to make one single decision whatsoever about your character's growthin the strong majority of cases. In 5e especially, every single (straight-level) member of a class is pretty much exactly identical to any other. One ninth-level fighter can be dropped into the spot of pretty much any other ninth-level fighter and nobody will really know the difference. One of the most important aspects of the game - how your character grows over time - is on rails and will never respond to your decisions or anything else you do, and that's simply not good role playing or good gaming.
THAT SAID...level-based systems are more approachable and "easier". D&D is already more difficult to get a grip on than Wizards likes; it doesn't often appeal to non-gamers because you need at least some familiarity with gaming-in-general before D&D makes sense, and as absolutely batshit insane as it seems to many of us, a lot of folks bounce off of even 5e - drastically oversimplified bonehead-stupid dumbed-down mess that it is - because the game is too complicated for them. Level-based progression is quick, clean, simple, and much easier to pick up on than point builders or other forms of mutable-progression games. Get your ding, copy the next set of fixed abilities for your class onto your sheet, done. It's easy, anbd it provides a baseline level of guaranteed performance that less technically proficient players enjoy. Some people hate having to make progression decisions because they're not good at making the right progression decisions, they know that, and they don't want to accidentally sabotage their character. If they continue on their class's fixed progression track, they know they'll never do that and the thought reassures them.
D&D has always been a level-based game. Frankly, it was the first level-based game, the game that popularized the level-based system in the first place. 4e tried to hybridize, get away from the level-based system to an extent and offer some of the advantages of a point builder game, and frankly I wish I could've been there for it. What little I've heard about 4e honestly sounds like exactly the sort of thing I'd love to see in 6e...but the existing D&D fanbase prior to online streaming shows was, is, and always will be fiercely resistant to any change to level-based progression. It's one of the keystone features that identifies the game, one of the things that makes D&D feel like D&D. A classless point-builder engine, or even a hybrid style a'la 4e or PF2e where your choices for class, species, and background provide you with a large pool of options you can select from when taking levels, pisses D&D purists off like no tomorrow because that's simply not how D&D is.
Never mind that "choose your progression" - WHEN YOU PROGRESS, not "choose your progression...once, at character creation, and then never make one single meaningful decision about your character's growth as a hero ever again" - is pretty objectively better for RPGs. The increased cognitive load of having to deal with mutable progression turns a significant enough number of people off that point builder systems cannot be said to be objectively better in totality than fixed-progression, level-based systems, and for D&D specifically there's also fifty years' worth of history and Sacred Cow to consider.
Some folks will experiment with a "D&D" that sacrifices fixed progression because they know that mutable, choosable progression is better for RPGs, especially more modern-style RPGs where the story of the table matters and players want their characters to grow in ways that reflect their story, but despite any recent booms(?) in such attempts, it'll never catch on to the wider D&D audience. The game is too mired in fifty year old holy beef to benefit from many of the insights and developments made in those fifty years. But we're all here anyways, so we may as well enjoy what we can of 5e for what it is and do our best to deal with what it isn't.
If a character takes progressions while playing, it means it takes experience, which later is translated into XP points, right ??? So, if this game is focusing in characters with skills and abilities, and those takes progressions, while the character dosen't benefits in leveling him/her up, then tell me what's the REAL PURPOSE of this game ??
RPG games are there for a reason... and this reason is to cretae a character, improve whatever you like, gain experience, share your knowledgements with anyone you like, and finally ( but not the most desired ) DIE.
D&D has always been a level-based game. Frankly, it was the first level-based game, the game that popularized the level-based system in the first place. 4e tried to hybridize, get away from the level-based system to an extent and offer some of the advantages of a point builder game, and frankly I wish I could've been there for it. What little I've heard about 4e honestly sounds like exactly the sort of thing I'd love to see in 6e...but the existing D&D fanbase prior to online streaming shows was, is, and always will be fiercely resistant to any change to level-based progression. It's one of the keystone features that identifies the game, one of the things that makes D&D feel like D&D. A classless point-builder engine, or even a hybrid style a'la 4e or PF2e where your choices for class, species, and background provide you with a large pool of options you can select from when taking levels, pisses D&D purists off like no tomorrow because that's simply not how D&D is.
Don't know that I'd call myself a purist per se, but "makes D&D feel like D&D" is a good enough reason for me. I don't mind different playstyles, high magic or low magic, horror setting or fluffy bunny unicorn games, but when I want to play D&D I do want it to feel like D&D - and that means class & level based fantasy with a bunch of different races. Plenty of other games out there that do other things for when I want other things.
If a character takes progressions while playing, it means it takes experience, which later is translated into XP points, right ??? So, if this game is focusing in characters with skills and abilities, and those takes progressions, while the character dosen't benefits in leveling him/her up, then tell me what's the REAL PURPOSE of this game ??
There are TTRPGs that use classes and levels, like D&D, but there are others who use classes without levels, levels without classes and neither classes nor levels too. The purpose of the game is to have fun. Fun is tied to playing, not to particular mechanics. The mechanics just have to be good for it to be a good game, and any kind of mechanic can be good.
On topic, I haven't seen this trend myself (my perusal of pod and vid casts tends to be pretty random, so it's unlikely I would pick up on this) but I expect most of these people watch each other, and they are all looking for new content to make, and in some cases they even like to get into something specifically as a reaction to someone else. At some point it's going to be houserules that get talked about everywhere for a month, and maybe fudging dice rolls will be the hot topic after that, and so on. I'm just happy WotC's woke wackiness errata thing hasn't really become the latest bandwagon for people to jump on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Because they’ve already started stripping away everything else that makes D&D what it is so now they’re going for the rest to change D&D into a different game that already exists instead of just playing one of those games instead.
Let me begin by saying that as much as I don't like any sort of level system, we all knew when we started D&D that it worked with levels so we shouldn't be shocked. I like 5e and I've played unleveled systems that I've enjoyed as well.
My question is why am I suddenly seeing videos from youtubers talking about taking D&D to a game without levels? Did someone lead a big panel about it somewhere that I missed out on or something? Did I click on one at random and now the Youtube RNG is steering all of these my way?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I guess we watch different feeds because I didn't know there was a groundswell or this was a "thing". The reason you see "all these...." is because a lot of content is reactionarily competitive. Someone does a video on classless D&D and others are compelled to do so hoping their video beats out the others in the algorhytms (I can never spell that) search results.
I know a couple of weeks ago, Seth Skorkowski did a video on "what are skill based games" where he explains the difference between level and skill games, because he kept being asked about it, and did his usual grounded nuanced view that pure levels and pure skill games are few but rather significant "leans" all games generally make. Cyberpunk, for example is a skill game, though every role has a "unique skill" to which you have to do the equivalent of multiclassing old school to acquire (and that wasn't even really allowed in the earliest editions).
It just would seem a waste of time to take class and levels out of D&D given that there are plenty of good to excellent systems out there where you can play D&D type fantasy in a system designed around skill development as opposed to class leveling. So basically you're looking at people consciously or zombie unconsciously trying to "game" social media by jumping on a trend and using the most recognizable TTRPG brand to do it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Because they’ve already started stripping away everything else that makes D&D what it is so now they’re going for the rest to change D&D into a different game that already exists instead of just playing one of those games instead.
Which "they" would that be? WotC or those youtubers? Just asking because honestly, I don't see WotC doing away with anything that makes D&D what it is. Admittedly that's based on my personal view of what makes D&D what it is, but still.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Let me begin by saying that as much as I don't like any sort of level system, we all knew when we started D&D that it worked with levels so we shouldn't be shocked. I like 5e and I've played unleveled systems that I've enjoyed as well.
My question is why am I suddenly seeing videos from youtubers talking about taking D&D to a game without levels? Did someone lead a big panel about it somewhere that I missed out on or something? Did I click on one at random and now the Youtube RNG is steering all of these my way?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I guess we watch different feeds because I didn't know there was a groundswell or this was a "thing". The reason you see "all these...." is because a lot of content is reactionarily competitive. Someone does a video on classless D&D and others are compelled to do so hoping their video beats out the others in the algorhytms (I can never spell that) search results.
I know a couple of weeks ago, Seth Skorkowski did a video on "what are skill based games" where he explains the difference between level and skill games, because he kept being asked about it, and did his usual grounded nuanced view that pure levels and pure skill games are few but rather significant "leans" all games generally make. Cyberpunk, for example is a skill game, though every role has a "unique skill" to which you have to do the equivalent of multiclassing old school to acquire (and that wasn't even really allowed in the earliest editions).
It just would seem a waste of time to take class and levels out of D&D given that there are plenty of good to excellent systems out there where you can play D&D type fantasy in a system designed around skill development as opposed to class leveling. So basically you're looking at people consciously or zombie unconsciously trying to "game" social media by jumping on a trend and using the most recognizable TTRPG brand to do it.
I'm not convinced. I just Googled "levelless dnd" and "dnd without levels", and all the initial results (probably checked ten or so each) are years old, spreading back to 2002 at one point. I'm not sure that this is a new phase as opposed to just algorithms sensing that he clicked on on link (perhaps brought up randomly) and now swamping his searches with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Because they’ve already started stripping away everything else that makes D&D what it is so now they’re going for the rest to change D&D into a different game that already exists instead of just playing one of those games instead.
Which "they" would that be? WotC or those youtubers? Just asking because honestly, I don't see WotC doing away with anything that makes D&D what it is. Admittedly that's based on my personal view of what makes D&D what it is, but still.
Please. Please, folks, let's not hijack this topic to start another thread about nimble elves and evil orcs.
To the OP. I do agree with the ideas above that it could be people responding to others who've had the idea and wanting to give their own take on it; that seems to be a good 2/3 of youtube content in general. Another option could be, there are a lot of people who are fairly new to D&D, and to tabletop in general. It could be that, now that people have been playing for a few years, and they've made a bunch of characters, they're starting to bump up against the limits of the system. They want a fighter who can cast a couple spells, and Eldritch Knight isn't quite getting them there, as an example. So, you start looking at point-buy class-less/level-less systems, and they start looking like maybe you can pull off the character idea you've got in your head, better than they can within the strictures of class-subclass-multiclass-level concept of D&D.
I agree with the others that trying to retrofit D&D into a system like that is a bad idea, for a number of reasons, but that's not quite the topic of the OP, so I'll stop there.
Because they’ve already started stripping away everything else that makes D&D what it is so now they’re going for the rest to change D&D into a different game that already exists instead of just playing one of those games instead.
Which "they" would that be? WotC or those youtubers? Just asking because honestly, I don't see WotC doing away with anything that makes D&D what it is. Admittedly that's based on my personal view of what makes D&D what it is, but still.
I agree, pangurjan. I played AD&D in the early 80’s back when truly one fighter was the same as any other fighter. 5E’s fighters are as varied as the stars compared to AD&D fighters, despite Yurei’s description. 😊
And I think 5E feels like D&D. I was ecstatic when I first picked up the 3E PHB and found out I could have a dwarven paladin if I wanted to. And if I wanted to multiclass them with wizard I could do so. 1E and 2E were much more restrictive but 3E still felt like D&D. I didn’t play or buy 4E so can’t say, but 5E still fits the bill.
That said, I wouldn’t mind more options. I like how the Hunter Ranger has options to choose from at subclass feature levels, so if they implemented more opportunities to make choices as you level I could get behind that. Classes and Levels define D&D and I don’t want to see that change. But seeing the differences and more options of 3E and 5E compared to 1E for character development keeps me wanting to play.
I’m not entirely sure, but I think it was something Colville said. I think someone had asked him what D&D was and he didn’t know how to answer at first. After a time he eventually landed upon the answer:
Start taking things away from D&D one at a time and whenever you take away something that makes it not feel like D&D anymore, put it back. Keep doing that until all that’s left are the things that you have specifically put back, and whatever is left in that little pile is D&D for you.
Its easy to say that nothing that makes D&D what it is has been taken away… when they haven’t taken away a solid 20% of your little pile.
Let me begin by saying that as much as I don't like any sort of level system, we all knew when we started D&D that it worked with levels so we shouldn't be shocked. I like 5e and I've played unleveled systems that I've enjoyed as well.
My question is why am I suddenly seeing videos from youtubers talking about taking D&D to a game without levels? Did someone lead a big panel about it somewhere that I missed out on or something? Did I click on one at random and now the Youtube RNG is steering all of these my way?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I guess we watch different feeds because I didn't know there was a groundswell or this was a "thing". The reason you see "all these...." is because a lot of content is reactionarily competitive. Someone does a video on classless D&D and others are compelled to do so hoping their video beats out the others in the algorhytms (I can never spell that) search results.
I know a couple of weeks ago, Seth Skorkowski did a video on "what are skill based games" where he explains the difference between level and skill games, because he kept being asked about it, and did his usual grounded nuanced view that pure levels and pure skill games are few but rather significant "leans" all games generally make. Cyberpunk, for example is a skill game, though every role has a "unique skill" to which you have to do the equivalent of multiclassing old school to acquire (and that wasn't even really allowed in the earliest editions).
It just would seem a waste of time to take class and levels out of D&D given that there are plenty of good to excellent systems out there where you can play D&D type fantasy in a system designed around skill development as opposed to class leveling. So basically you're looking at people consciously or zombie unconsciously trying to "game" social media by jumping on a trend and using the most recognizable TTRPG brand to do it.
I'm not convinced. I just Googled "levelless dnd" and "dnd without levels", and all the initial results (probably checked ten or so each) are years old, spreading back to 2002 at one point. I'm not sure that this is a new phase as opposed to just algorithms sensing that he clicked on on link (perhaps brought up randomly) and now swamping his searches with it.
Curiously, after putting my response down here, one of the "you may like" highlighted YouTube videos on their splash page for me was DungeonCraft "MATT MERCER KNOWS LEVELING UP IS CURSE"/aka "The Problem with Leveling Up in Dungeons and Dragons" apparently put out about 7 days ago. I can't say I'm a regular DungeonCraft watcher, and haven't watched the vid, but I'm guessing someone said something recently and the reaction is simply blooming till it goes away in a week or so.
I guess the discussion isn't really on here at all since we're talking about something you really can't do in any real way on DDB. Maybe it's got some legs on ENWORLD or Reddit or maybe Bell of Lost Souls is trying to get attention again.
I watched thirty seconds of that DungeonCraft video. Mostly because I cannot stand that guy.
It's not a video about classless leveling systems. It's a video in which the man decides to badmouth high-level D&D, and uses Critical Role and Matt Mercer as a scapegoat because Bertrand Bell lost thirteen levels in the thirty years he spent becoming an octogenerian after delving into Pandemonium.
Its easy to say that nothing that makes D&D what it is has been taken away… when they haven’t taken away a solid 20% of your little pile.
Which is what I acknowledged in the disclaimer at the end of my post. Just trying to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding you anyway, so I'm not going deeper into that here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I watched thirty seconds of that DungeonCraft video. Mostly because I cannot stand that guy.
It's not a video about classless leveling systems. It's a video in which the man decides to badmouth high-level D&D, and uses Critical Role and Matt Mercer as a scapegoat because Bertrand Bell lost thirteen levels in the thirty years he spent becoming an octogenerian after delving into Pandemonium.
Eh, I dunno, in the Skorkowsky vid, he talks about a number of contrasts between class level and skill development games. While we can disagree on whether a fussy jacket and vest are appropriate TTRPG YouTube attire, I think DungeonCraft is reiterating a common complaint about level up/class play: players eventually outclass, so to speak, 'low level' threats. Personally I think this is fine for games designed to progress to absurd levels, so to speak again, of risk taking where the lowly common thief origin can eventually steal a treasure guarded by Tiamat herself. Whereas in a skill based games tend to have a rule style that says "the guns and knives that can kill you straight out of character generation can and will kill you when the character is at their apex." No matter how many training points they receive the corporate agent who works for Weyland Yutani is never going to be able to survive a bare knuckle brawl with a Xenomorph Queen.
I think 5e's articulation of the four tiers of play is a pretty good defense for class-level games (I honestly don't know if it was ever articulated in core books in prior editions, I don't remember it as such in AD&D or 2e and I didn't pay a lot of attention from 3-4e), but on the other hand you can have game like Champions where someone can have modest beginning and ascend to great powers. I'm now curious how FFG handles The Force in this regard since that's a totally different scale of power compared to say being able to do a jet pack enabled kick attack in your mando armor.
I think levels and the XP system 1.) maintain the spell slot system and help magic make sense in d&d (though I suppose some radical alt spell points system could pick up the slack) but the risk and rewards metric (CR and XP) are deeply ingrained into a level system and I'm guessing (if they're real) the blow up levels dynamite grenade don't really understand what system integral means. Sloppy play is fine, but it's never going to be a game changing movement, saying this without really knowing what these alleged folks are saying.
Since I dropped references twice, here's the Skorkowsky vid (and damnit now that tweedy dungeoncraft guy is all over my YouTube, whole other interpretation of viral, he's like metastasized):
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I watched thirty seconds of that DungeonCraft video. Mostly because I cannot stand that guy.
It's not a video about classless leveling systems. It's a video in which the man decides to badmouth high-level D&D, and uses Critical Role and Matt Mercer as a scapegoat because Bertrand Bell lost thirteen levels in the thirty years he spent becoming an octogenerian after delving into Pandemonium.
I watched that vid a few days ago so might be misremembering but I think his point was more along the lines of leveling being a curse because you eventually get to the “end of your career”. The arc of your character comes to an end pretty much once you hit 20th level and you retire. What if you don’t want to retire? You’re basically a god so what do you do? If you want to keep playing your character, leveling up is working against that so don’t level.
Now you have to take his comments with a grain of salt as he does not play high level D&D.
And along the same lines I think XP to Level 3 had a video about leveling being stupid since your enemies level with you so you end up with more “things” but really not any more powerful as everything scales with you (CR system). Kind of like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion where bandits were running around in daedric armor trying to shake you down for 100 gold when their armor was worth about 800,000gp. Like Bill Gates stealing your lunch money.
Neither were saying D&D should be classless or levelless.
I watched thirty seconds of that DungeonCraft video. Mostly because I cannot stand that guy.
It's not a video about classless leveling systems. It's a video in which the man decides to badmouth high-level D&D, and uses Critical Role and Matt Mercer as a scapegoat because Bertrand Bell lost thirteen levels in the thirty years he spent becoming an octogenerian after delving into Pandemonium.
I watched that vid a few days ago so might be misremembering but I think his point was more along the lines of leveling being a curse because you eventually get to the “end of your career”. The arc of your character comes to an end pretty much once you hit 20th level and you retire. What if you don’t want to retire? You’re basically a god so what do you do? If you want to keep playing your character, leveling up is working against that so don’t level.
Now you have to take his comments with a grain of salt as he does not play high level D&D.
And along the same lines I think XP to Level 3 had a video about leveling being stupid since your enemies level with you so you end up with more “things” but really not any more powerful as everything scales with you (CR system). Kind of like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion where bandits were running around in daedric armor trying to shake you down for 100 gold when their armor was worth about 800,000gp. Like Bill Gates stealing your lunch money.
Neither were saying D&D should be classless or levelless.
Yeah the critique seems to be that leveling up "outclasses" or raises the whole game ... which gets bogged down because of multiplying power features on both sides etc. I don't feel that sentiment is necessarily wrong, but I think they're missing the intent of the design of leveling. A level based game presumes a player needs some orientation time learning their character, and leveling up is presuming the character has been played enough that the character can expand its capacity. This design element can be critiques by those who think it leads to too much to think about, but I think it can also be appreciated that ideally leveling up is a product of not just what the character does but the player experience as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I watched thirty seconds of that DungeonCraft video. Mostly because I cannot stand that guy.
It's not a video about classless leveling systems. It's a video in which the man decides to badmouth high-level D&D, and uses Critical Role and Matt Mercer as a scapegoat because Bertrand Bell lost thirteen levels in the thirty years he spent becoming an octogenerian after delving into Pandemonium.
Eh, I dunno, in the Skorkowsky vid, he talks about a number of contrasts between class level and skill development games. While we can disagree on whether a fussy jacket and vest are appropriate TTRPG YouTube attire, I think DungeonCraft is reiterating a common complaint about level up/class play: players eventually outclass, so to speak, 'low level' threats. Personally I think this is fine for games designed to progress to absurd levels, so to speak again, of risk taking where the lowly common thief origin can eventually steal a treasure guarded by Tiamat herself. Whereas in a skill based games tend to have a rule style that says "the guns and knives that can kill you straight out of character generation can and will kill you when the character is at their apex."
That's not really caused by D&D being a class and level system, it's caused by decisions made about how power scaling works. Plenty of non-level-based systems allow you to create a character who's functional immune to starting threats, it's just that, for characters that aren't explicitly superhuman, that immunity is usually accomplished by being unhittable -- in D&D terms, the primary effect of gaining levels would be increased defenses (ac, saves, etc), without a lot of change in hit points and damage. To use your own example, in Champions the mooks who are a threat in a 50 point secret agents game are irrelevant in a 250 point superhero game.
I think 5e's articulation of the four tiers of play is a pretty good defense for class-level games (I honestly don't know if it was ever articulated in core books in prior editions, I don't remember it as such in AD&D or 2e and I didn't pay a lot of attention from 3-4e)
It was kind of the entire premise of BECMI, even if it wasn't necessarily an intentional design choice. You played Red Box and fought Red Box enemies and cast Red Box spells, until you were ready for Blue Box, etc. Later boxes also expanded the world in various ways -- the Companion/Cyan box introduced rules for large-scale combats and that sort of thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think 5e's articulation of the four tiers of play is a pretty good defense for class-level games (I honestly don't know if it was ever articulated in core books in prior editions, I don't remember it as such in AD&D or 2e and I didn't pay a lot of attention from 3-4e)
It was kind of the entire premise of BECMI, even if it wasn't necessarily an intentional design choice. You played Red Box and fought Red Box enemies and cast Red Box spells, until you were ready for Blue Box, etc. Later boxes also expanded the world in various ways -- the Companion/Cyan box introduced rules for large-scale combats and that sort of thing
Yeah, that jogs my memory and makes sense, but I don't know whether that strategy was as at play when things shifted to AD&D where you got levels 1 to 32 or whatever that they charted out magics and all in one book. The lack of explicit level segregation that BECMI literally packaged led to a phenomeon that might not have been RAI but I think against the spirit of the game, brutal parties where you'd have tenth level characters mixed in with 2nd and 3rd level characters and 1st level red shirts who would last a session. I mean, have XP tables that varied between classes didn't help either.
I definitely "underrated" and misunderstood BECMI back in the day, middle school me though "AD&D" was "the real D&D".
I watched thirty seconds of that DungeonCraft video. Mostly because I cannot stand that guy.
It's not a video about classless leveling systems. It's a video in which the man decides to badmouth high-level D&D, and uses Critical Role and Matt Mercer as a scapegoat because Bertrand Bell lost thirteen levels in the thirty years he spent becoming an octogenerian after delving into Pandemonium.
Eh, I dunno, in the Skorkowsky vid, he talks about a number of contrasts between class level and skill development games. While we can disagree on whether a fussy jacket and vest are appropriate TTRPG YouTube attire, I think DungeonCraft is reiterating a common complaint about level up/class play: players eventually outclass, so to speak, 'low level' threats. Personally I think this is fine for games designed to progress to absurd levels, so to speak again, of risk taking where the lowly common thief origin can eventually steal a treasure guarded by Tiamat herself. Whereas in a skill based games tend to have a rule style that says "the guns and knives that can kill you straight out of character generation can and will kill you when the character is at their apex."
That's not really caused by D&D being a class and level system, it's caused by decisions made about how power scaling works. Plenty of non-level-based systems allow you to create a character who's functional immune to starting threats, it's just that, for characters that aren't explicitly superhuman, that immunity is usually accomplished by being unhittable -- in D&D terms, the primary effect of gaining levels would be increased defenses (ac, saves, etc), without a lot of change in hit points and damage. To use your own example, in Champions the mooks who are a threat in a 50 point secret agents game are irrelevant in a 250 point superhero game.
I think you're introducing something entirely different from point buy based games that's certainly there but hasn't been touched on. D&D by design presumes the possibility of progression from 1-20 (though in practice as DungeonCraft says a lot of games do stick in that lvl 5-10 sweet spot before hitting the reset button or trying out a different game with a skill system or what have you). Champions in have a 50 point game and 250 point game sets parameters by design for the entirety of the game. IIRC without heavy GM intervention your 50 pt secret agent isn't going get to the same power level as the 250 pt build through any sort of natural play achievements (like leveling up). Rather power progressions from say starting at a 50 pt. game and maybe increments of 75 pt. till they're at 250 would require true Deus ex GameMasterna. In other words, a character is "supposed" power up over the course of D&D, in more parameter setting games, and I'd say a lot of skill based games it's a design element that there are pragmatic limits to what a character can grow into.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let me begin by saying that as much as I don't like any sort of level system, we all knew when we started D&D that it worked with levels so we shouldn't be shocked. I like 5e and I've played unleveled systems that I've enjoyed as well.
My question is why am I suddenly seeing videos from youtubers talking about taking D&D to a game without levels? Did someone lead a big panel about it somewhere that I missed out on or something? Did I click on one at random and now the Youtube RNG is steering all of these my way?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Depends on what you mean by "without levels". Are we talking something like a classless, point builder progression system a'la GURPS, Savage Worlds, or Cyberpunk?
If so: because those systems are better than level-based games. They just are. The entire essence of a tabletop RPG is making decisions. Players make decisions about their actions in the moment, they make decisions about how to use their limited resources (time, money, favor/influence), they make decisions about where to go, who to take with them, and what goals to set themselves to. The hallmark of the TTRPG is unfettered choice...and then you get a 'Ding', you get a new level, but you don't get to make one single decision whatsoever about your character's growthin the strong majority of cases. In 5e especially, every single (straight-level) member of a class is pretty much exactly identical to any other. One ninth-level fighter can be dropped into the spot of pretty much any other ninth-level fighter and nobody will really know the difference. One of the most important aspects of the game - how your character grows over time - is on rails and will never respond to your decisions or anything else you do, and that's simply not good role playing or good gaming.
THAT SAID...level-based systems are more approachable and "easier". D&D is already more difficult to get a grip on than Wizards likes; it doesn't often appeal to non-gamers because you need at least some familiarity with gaming-in-general before D&D makes sense, and as absolutely batshit insane as it seems to many of us, a lot of folks bounce off of even 5e - drastically oversimplified bonehead-stupid dumbed-down mess that it is - because the game is too complicated for them. Level-based progression is quick, clean, simple, and much easier to pick up on than point builders or other forms of mutable-progression games. Get your ding, copy the next set of fixed abilities for your class onto your sheet, done. It's easy, anbd it provides a baseline level of guaranteed performance that less technically proficient players enjoy. Some people hate having to make progression decisions because they're not good at making the right progression decisions, they know that, and they don't want to accidentally sabotage their character. If they continue on their class's fixed progression track, they know they'll never do that and the thought reassures them.
D&D has always been a level-based game. Frankly, it was the first level-based game, the game that popularized the level-based system in the first place. 4e tried to hybridize, get away from the level-based system to an extent and offer some of the advantages of a point builder game, and frankly I wish I could've been there for it. What little I've heard about 4e honestly sounds like exactly the sort of thing I'd love to see in 6e...but the existing D&D fanbase prior to online streaming shows was, is, and always will be fiercely resistant to any change to level-based progression. It's one of the keystone features that identifies the game, one of the things that makes D&D feel like D&D. A classless point-builder engine, or even a hybrid style a'la 4e or PF2e where your choices for class, species, and background provide you with a large pool of options you can select from when taking levels, pisses D&D purists off like no tomorrow because that's simply not how D&D is.
Never mind that "choose your progression" - WHEN YOU PROGRESS, not "choose your progression...once, at character creation, and then never make one single meaningful decision about your character's growth as a hero ever again" - is pretty objectively better for RPGs. The increased cognitive load of having to deal with mutable progression turns a significant enough number of people off that point builder systems cannot be said to be objectively better in totality than fixed-progression, level-based systems, and for D&D specifically there's also fifty years' worth of history and Sacred Cow to consider.
Some folks will experiment with a "D&D" that sacrifices fixed progression because they know that mutable, choosable progression is better for RPGs, especially more modern-style RPGs where the story of the table matters and players want their characters to grow in ways that reflect their story, but despite any recent booms(?) in such attempts, it'll never catch on to the wider D&D audience. The game is too mired in fifty year old holy beef to benefit from many of the insights and developments made in those fifty years. But we're all here anyways, so we may as well enjoy what we can of 5e for what it is and do our best to deal with what it isn't.
Please do not contact or message me.
If a character takes progressions while playing, it means it takes experience, which later is translated into XP points, right ??? So, if this game is focusing in characters with skills and abilities, and those takes progressions, while the character dosen't benefits in leveling him/her up, then tell me what's the REAL PURPOSE of this game ??
RPG games are there for a reason... and this reason is to cretae a character, improve whatever you like, gain experience, share your knowledgements with anyone you like, and finally ( but not the most desired ) DIE.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
Don't know that I'd call myself a purist per se, but "makes D&D feel like D&D" is a good enough reason for me. I don't mind different playstyles, high magic or low magic, horror setting or fluffy bunny unicorn games, but when I want to play D&D I do want it to feel like D&D - and that means class & level based fantasy with a bunch of different races. Plenty of other games out there that do other things for when I want other things.
There are TTRPGs that use classes and levels, like D&D, but there are others who use classes without levels, levels without classes and neither classes nor levels too. The purpose of the game is to have fun. Fun is tied to playing, not to particular mechanics. The mechanics just have to be good for it to be a good game, and any kind of mechanic can be good.
On topic, I haven't seen this trend myself (my perusal of pod and vid casts tends to be pretty random, so it's unlikely I would pick up on this) but I expect most of these people watch each other, and they are all looking for new content to make, and in some cases they even like to get into something specifically as a reaction to someone else. At some point it's going to be houserules that get talked about everywhere for a month, and maybe fudging dice rolls will be the hot topic after that, and so on. I'm just happy WotC's woke wackiness errata thing hasn't really become the latest bandwagon for people to jump on.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Because they’ve already started stripping away everything else that makes D&D what it is so now they’re going for the rest to change D&D into a different game that already exists instead of just playing one of those games instead.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I guess we watch different feeds because I didn't know there was a groundswell or this was a "thing". The reason you see "all these...." is because a lot of content is reactionarily competitive. Someone does a video on classless D&D and others are compelled to do so hoping their video beats out the others in the algorhytms (I can never spell that) search results.
I know a couple of weeks ago, Seth Skorkowski did a video on "what are skill based games" where he explains the difference between level and skill games, because he kept being asked about it, and did his usual grounded nuanced view that pure levels and pure skill games are few but rather significant "leans" all games generally make. Cyberpunk, for example is a skill game, though every role has a "unique skill" to which you have to do the equivalent of multiclassing old school to acquire (and that wasn't even really allowed in the earliest editions).
It just would seem a waste of time to take class and levels out of D&D given that there are plenty of good to excellent systems out there where you can play D&D type fantasy in a system designed around skill development as opposed to class leveling. So basically you're looking at people consciously or zombie unconsciously trying to "game" social media by jumping on a trend and using the most recognizable TTRPG brand to do it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Which "they" would that be? WotC or those youtubers? Just asking because honestly, I don't see WotC doing away with anything that makes D&D what it is. Admittedly that's based on my personal view of what makes D&D what it is, but still.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm not convinced. I just Googled "levelless dnd" and "dnd without levels", and all the initial results (probably checked ten or so each) are years old, spreading back to 2002 at one point. I'm not sure that this is a new phase as opposed to just algorithms sensing that he clicked on on link (perhaps brought up randomly) and now swamping his searches with it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Please. Please, folks, let's not hijack this topic to start another thread about nimble elves and evil orcs.
To the OP. I do agree with the ideas above that it could be people responding to others who've had the idea and wanting to give their own take on it; that seems to be a good 2/3 of youtube content in general. Another option could be, there are a lot of people who are fairly new to D&D, and to tabletop in general. It could be that, now that people have been playing for a few years, and they've made a bunch of characters, they're starting to bump up against the limits of the system. They want a fighter who can cast a couple spells, and Eldritch Knight isn't quite getting them there, as an example. So, you start looking at point-buy class-less/level-less systems, and they start looking like maybe you can pull off the character idea you've got in your head, better than they can within the strictures of class-subclass-multiclass-level concept of D&D.
I agree with the others that trying to retrofit D&D into a system like that is a bad idea, for a number of reasons, but that's not quite the topic of the OP, so I'll stop there.
I agree, pangurjan. I played AD&D in the early 80’s back when truly one fighter was the same as any other fighter. 5E’s fighters are as varied as the stars compared to AD&D fighters, despite Yurei’s description. 😊
And I think 5E feels like D&D. I was ecstatic when I first picked up the 3E PHB and found out I could have a dwarven paladin if I wanted to. And if I wanted to multiclass them with wizard I could do so. 1E and 2E were much more restrictive but 3E still felt like D&D. I didn’t play or buy 4E so can’t say, but 5E still fits the bill.
That said, I wouldn’t mind more options. I like how the Hunter Ranger has options to choose from at subclass feature levels, so if they implemented more opportunities to make choices as you level I could get behind that. Classes and Levels define D&D and I don’t want to see that change. But seeing the differences and more options of 3E and 5E compared to 1E for character development keeps me wanting to play.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I’m not entirely sure, but I think it was something Colville said. I think someone had asked him what D&D was and he didn’t know how to answer at first. After a time he eventually landed upon the answer:
Start taking things away from D&D one at a time and whenever you take away something that makes it not feel like D&D anymore, put it back. Keep doing that until all that’s left are the things that you have specifically put back, and whatever is left in that little pile is D&D for you.
Its easy to say that nothing that makes D&D what it is has been taken away… when they haven’t taken away a solid 20% of your little pile.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Curiously, after putting my response down here, one of the "you may like" highlighted YouTube videos on their splash page for me was DungeonCraft "MATT MERCER KNOWS LEVELING UP IS CURSE"/aka "The Problem with Leveling Up in Dungeons and Dragons" apparently put out about 7 days ago. I can't say I'm a regular DungeonCraft watcher, and haven't watched the vid, but I'm guessing someone said something recently and the reaction is simply blooming till it goes away in a week or so.
I guess the discussion isn't really on here at all since we're talking about something you really can't do in any real way on DDB. Maybe it's got some legs on ENWORLD or Reddit or maybe Bell of Lost Souls is trying to get attention again.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I watched thirty seconds of that DungeonCraft video. Mostly because I cannot stand that guy.
It's not a video about classless leveling systems. It's a video in which the man decides to badmouth high-level D&D, and uses Critical Role and Matt Mercer as a scapegoat because Bertrand Bell lost thirteen levels in the thirty years he spent becoming an octogenerian after delving into Pandemonium.
Please do not contact or message me.
Which is what I acknowledged in the disclaimer at the end of my post. Just trying to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding you anyway, so I'm not going deeper into that here.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Eh, I dunno, in the Skorkowsky vid, he talks about a number of contrasts between class level and skill development games. While we can disagree on whether a fussy jacket and vest are appropriate TTRPG YouTube attire, I think DungeonCraft is reiterating a common complaint about level up/class play: players eventually outclass, so to speak, 'low level' threats. Personally I think this is fine for games designed to progress to absurd levels, so to speak again, of risk taking where the lowly common thief origin can eventually steal a treasure guarded by Tiamat herself. Whereas in a skill based games tend to have a rule style that says "the guns and knives that can kill you straight out of character generation can and will kill you when the character is at their apex." No matter how many training points they receive the corporate agent who works for Weyland Yutani is never going to be able to survive a bare knuckle brawl with a Xenomorph Queen.
I think 5e's articulation of the four tiers of play is a pretty good defense for class-level games (I honestly don't know if it was ever articulated in core books in prior editions, I don't remember it as such in AD&D or 2e and I didn't pay a lot of attention from 3-4e), but on the other hand you can have game like Champions where someone can have modest beginning and ascend to great powers. I'm now curious how FFG handles The Force in this regard since that's a totally different scale of power compared to say being able to do a jet pack enabled kick attack in your mando armor.
I think levels and the XP system 1.) maintain the spell slot system and help magic make sense in d&d (though I suppose some radical alt spell points system could pick up the slack) but the risk and rewards metric (CR and XP) are deeply ingrained into a level system and I'm guessing (if they're real) the blow up levels dynamite grenade don't really understand what system integral means. Sloppy play is fine, but it's never going to be a game changing movement, saying this without really knowing what these alleged folks are saying.
Since I dropped references twice, here's the Skorkowsky vid (and damnit now that tweedy dungeoncraft guy is all over my YouTube, whole other interpretation of viral, he's like metastasized):
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I watched that vid a few days ago so might be misremembering but I think his point was more along the lines of leveling being a curse because you eventually get to the “end of your career”. The arc of your character comes to an end pretty much once you hit 20th level and you retire. What if you don’t want to retire? You’re basically a god so what do you do? If you want to keep playing your character, leveling up is working against that so don’t level.
Now you have to take his comments with a grain of salt as he does not play high level D&D.
And along the same lines I think XP to Level 3 had a video about leveling being stupid since your enemies level with you so you end up with more “things” but really not any more powerful as everything scales with you (CR system). Kind of like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion where bandits were running around in daedric armor trying to shake you down for 100 gold when their armor was worth about 800,000gp. Like Bill Gates stealing your lunch money.
Neither were saying D&D should be classless or levelless.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Yeah the critique seems to be that leveling up "outclasses" or raises the whole game ... which gets bogged down because of multiplying power features on both sides etc. I don't feel that sentiment is necessarily wrong, but I think they're missing the intent of the design of leveling. A level based game presumes a player needs some orientation time learning their character, and leveling up is presuming the character has been played enough that the character can expand its capacity. This design element can be critiques by those who think it leads to too much to think about, but I think it can also be appreciated that ideally leveling up is a product of not just what the character does but the player experience as well.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's not really caused by D&D being a class and level system, it's caused by decisions made about how power scaling works. Plenty of non-level-based systems allow you to create a character who's functional immune to starting threats, it's just that, for characters that aren't explicitly superhuman, that immunity is usually accomplished by being unhittable -- in D&D terms, the primary effect of gaining levels would be increased defenses (ac, saves, etc), without a lot of change in hit points and damage. To use your own example, in Champions the mooks who are a threat in a 50 point secret agents game are irrelevant in a 250 point superhero game.
It was kind of the entire premise of BECMI, even if it wasn't necessarily an intentional design choice. You played Red Box and fought Red Box enemies and cast Red Box spells, until you were ready for Blue Box, etc. Later boxes also expanded the world in various ways -- the Companion/Cyan box introduced rules for large-scale combats and that sort of thing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, that jogs my memory and makes sense, but I don't know whether that strategy was as at play when things shifted to AD&D where you got levels 1 to 32 or whatever that they charted out magics and all in one book. The lack of explicit level segregation that BECMI literally packaged led to a phenomeon that might not have been RAI but I think against the spirit of the game, brutal parties where you'd have tenth level characters mixed in with 2nd and 3rd level characters and 1st level red shirts who would last a session. I mean, have XP tables that varied between classes didn't help either.
I definitely "underrated" and misunderstood BECMI back in the day, middle school me though "AD&D" was "the real D&D".
I think you're introducing something entirely different from point buy based games that's certainly there but hasn't been touched on. D&D by design presumes the possibility of progression from 1-20 (though in practice as DungeonCraft says a lot of games do stick in that lvl 5-10 sweet spot before hitting the reset button or trying out a different game with a skill system or what have you). Champions in have a 50 point game and 250 point game sets parameters by design for the entirety of the game. IIRC without heavy GM intervention your 50 pt secret agent isn't going get to the same power level as the 250 pt build through any sort of natural play achievements (like leveling up). Rather power progressions from say starting at a 50 pt. game and maybe increments of 75 pt. till they're at 250 would require true Deus ex GameMasterna. In other words, a character is "supposed" power up over the course of D&D, in more parameter setting games, and I'd say a lot of skill based games it's a design element that there are pragmatic limits to what a character can grow into.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.