Can I kill the level cap?

Remove all ads!

I have been a DM for over 22 years now and strongly oppose the notion of a players power being limited by the game. If I told my player characters they had reached the maximum level they would stop playing immediately. I feel the same way when this happens to me in a computer game. I usually avoid the main plot lines in these games and wander around testing the limits of what the game has to offer. (Morrowind is very good for this) I will surely reach the level cap before the game is done. Will the old teambg hacks work? Does anyone have an idea? - Hemogobbler -

 

I stopped playing it. Besides completing the main quests and i have plenty of coin what else does the game offer? Nothing, it's lame if ur stuck on certain level. So i gave up. It's no longer fun.

Seems all they wanted to do was have the characters just complete the main quest and NOT explore the lands and all side quests.

[This message has been edited by darkelf (edited July 06, 2002).]

 

Wait a couple of weeks untill everything has solved, then perhaps some people will make a xp cap remover.

 

Hi Taluntain: I only used AD&D for about 5 years before creating my own rules, so I'm not up to date on the books. It seems to me that even the old system allowed for unlimited level progression though; I think it maxed out at 375,000 xp per level for mages and 250,000 for fighters, but there was no upper limit.

 

What does it matter if the char has a level cap? I went through with my Ranger/Rogue doing many side quests and never reached the cap.
I'm now going through again but this time I have a different char.
why do you have to do all the quests with the same char?
and actuelly you can't do them all with the same char anyway there are some things you do that make it impossible to do other things.

**spoiler**
like in chap 1 when you are hired to go and kill the noble that has the Nymph and get his key for the warehouse.
you can do that quest or..
you can talk to the noble and he can then hire you to kill the rebel (which is much more profitable )

aside from the fact that if you have maxed out your level more then likely all the monsters are so easy there isn't much fun in it.

 

I was maxed out in the start of chapter 3. Why because I fought everything, did all the quests and what i get in reward a cap on the character. I remember in the early 80's people having 25 and above characters.

 

I tend to think the 'correct' response to this supposed problem is to further reduce the experience gained per kill. Even at full experience per kill, a typical PnP campaign would take years of once a week game play to reach the level cap.

My half orc fighter in my PnP game has played problably 60 hours or so of actual playing time and is only 3rd level. My half orc fighter in NWN played about the same amount of time and is level 20.

Hmm, I wonder how low the xp modifier can be set? All the way down to 1% might be nice.

 

Also remember, actual pnp hours v/s actual game hours, one tends to get little done in a pnp campaign during a game session, even a long one. And with most campaings, less monster fighting and more interaction and rp is the norm. In game hours, alot gets done during the time you play the game, and usually alot of combat is included. Combat goes quickly, there isn't alot of banter back and forth, there aren't rules to look up and decisions that take all night to be made. Everything will naturally progress faster in most video games. They're designed for quicker gratification.

 

Vore has a point, but companies do go for the quick and easy path trying to allow the masses to be happy. Like I said in my first post people arent to happy with the cap. Rule or no, they should have thought about this one ahead of time. Theres some hardcore gamers that have completed to lv 20, and aren't to happy with paying 60 bucks and being stuck at that level cause of some rule in a book. It's like a novel, how like is the movie when it comes out. Yes, in a way it's feeding the masses, however happy gamers means more sales so in the end would it not profit the company to overlook such a minor rule?

 

Actually, Darkelf, I think they might have been counting on people wanting more. From a business perspective, one of the main selling points of NWN was that it was replicating the PnP D&D game as much as possible. With that in mind, consider two things. First, fans of the PnP game might not think of it as *real* D&D if it didn't follow the rules as exactly as possible. Especially since there is a whole book dedicated to characters of level 20 and up - that just screams NWN expansion pack! Also, an expansion pack that allows for levels over 20 means even more sales from all segments of the market (makes core D&D fans happy, and power gamers). If the first release bent the rules and allowed levels above 20, not only would they have chanced alientating a segment of the market, but they would also be seriously limiting the possibilities for an expansion pack, and thus reducing overall sales.

As for people that aren't happy right now, well, with the toolset, multiplayer and the upcoming persistent worlds (the other main selling points of the game), make a new character and set off on a whole new adventure For your $60 bucks (it was $85 CDN), you can create an unlimited number of different characters and undertake countless of other adventures. Just hold on to some of your favourites, because there undoubtedly will be an expansion for higher levels.

P.S. I'm trying to speed it up Vormaerin, honest I am

 

Voraerin: If you feel you are advancing in level too quickly, you can simply forestall leveling up until you "deserve" it.

Darkelf: I agree with your last reply; since there are two schools of thought on the level cap, it would behoove game designers to provide an option.

This could be a toggleable game option, a factor of difficulty rating, or simply a hack released on the web. That way everyone would be able to play the way they want.

If it makes me happy to kick Kobolds into the gutter at 167th level, then why not?

 

As a veteran D&D, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Twilight2k etc. player (and DM from time to time) I say I agree with Vormaerin. Or the similar type of idea at least. It would be good to just lower the xp gained per kill, or then the other option (kind of like when playing BG1 for the first time). In BG you pretty much had to work for the levels, and every level was instantly seen as your character getting considerably much better.

Best however, would be that the DM would award the xp's in the end of the game. And as for the game itself, it should be made considerably more challenging. No more "I'm level one paladin and I'll just kick the asses of these 4 goblins, 3 skeletons and one lvl 3 mage over here". So I'd prefer a p&p type of system where you encounter enemies rarely compared to the diablo hack'n slash you see in BG or NWN. But when you do, even one skeleton is an exciting opponent as it can end your life if you're unlucky.

Of course you can't waste those 3h of time on exciting combat with a game like this, so you have to have more action. Fact is, even NWN can't get to 10% of the feeling and gameplay found in a traditional p&p. But it's better than the less than 0.1% most games get to.

I agree that when the trademark is "be a DM and control everything", it's quite lame that you limit the levels of the players (as if this was the only thing). But seems there was a very good reason to it, according to Taluntain. Still, the levelcap is in no way anything more than a minor inconvenience. To say anything more is to state the fact that all you want is to build supergods superquickly with the only purpose being to slaughter as many enemies as possible. This is not a hack'n slash. If you want to make it one, fine. You have the power to do that. But for just that, you obviously bought the wrong game. The 20 levels are more than enough for a good roleplay.

 

Saying NN adheres strictly to D&D rules is a cop-out, and isn't remotely true. Anyone wishing to dispute this should do so by informing me of where in the rules I can find the following things:

1. re-spawning of player characters abd NPC's

2. Bodies of slain foes fading away along with their posessions.

3. Immortality of plot-relevant beings.

4. Players gaining XP for NPC kills.

I suspect Taluntain's theory of a profit motive is closer to the truth.

 

Well, the expansion incentive is certainly part of it, of course. But the fact that the core rules only go to a level 20 is also part of it.

Your examples of 'rules' violations are pretty weak, btw. The respawn option is clearly non D&D, of course, but I don't think that's a big issue. Reloading is just as big a rules breach. Both are crutches for the single player campaign and needn't apply to multiplayer.

Bodies fading away is merely a graphics savings tool. The creatures don't drop their gear solely because bioware didn't individually program the treasure drops. Again, that's an issue with *this* module, not with the game.

Immortality of plot relevant beings? Uh, sure. In pnp play, if you kill the major good guys, the DM just throws his coke at your head and makes up a new story (like, how the PCs escape town as wanted murderers). That can't be done in a prescripted single player module. Again, an issue only for the module, not for the game as a whole.

PCs gaining exp for NPC kills? What are you talking about? If you participate in a fight in pnp, you get a share of the experience regardless of who killed who.

This game does 'break' some of the D&D rules, mainly by using a simplified skill and feat system. But that is hardly justification for saying they should have designed their own house rules for epic level play. It would have been foolish not only because it is a good source of expansion sales, but because it would completely undermine the claim of running D&D. Everything after level 20 would have been wholly made up and likely borne little resemblance to what WOTC publishes in the Epic Level Sourcebook.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

Vormaerin: I think you are too quick to brush off the importance of bodies and treasure fading away. Looting of slain enemies is a significant part of the game. Any human DM who pulled a stunt like that would have to be identified later by dental records.

The only reason NPC's were made immortal is that there is only one plot in this game. At very least there should have been two threads, one each for good and evil. You can call this a role playing game if you like, but there is only one role to play as the main plotline is preordained. For an example of how true this is, see my MwaHaHa post. This game is more of a "scripted sequence" than an RPG.

You refer to throwing soda at player characters as if this is normal behavior. Presumably all of your adventures are driven by inevitable prophecy. When I make an adventure there are always at least three endings prepared, and it is not uncommon for the players to generate endings I never expected. I realize computer algorithms are not as adaptable as we are, but it would be nice to see game developers pay more attention to generating multithread plots.

Resorting to immortal NPC's is pitiful, and by no means necessary. Morrowind lets you kill anyone. If they are important to the story line it informs you that the thread of prophecy is broken and gives you a choice to go on or reload.

As for fading out, I don't think this was an oversight, or necessary to preserve frame rate. I think the game developers want us to play nice and go along the yellow brick road. The NPC's disintegrate with their treasure to remove any incentive to cause them trouble.

As to experience, we only give experience for a kill to those who inflict damage, or help in some other way. I guess we made that up.

This brings us to an important point about the "rules" of D&D. In the original DM's guide there is a passage from Gary Gygax which says that the rules in these books are merely suggestions, and should act as guidelines rather than absolute law. I think some people may have lost track of that.

 

To the point about the bodies/treasure fading away after a kill, that *is* (AFAIK) a characteristic of the single player module included with the game. When creating NPCs (monsters, et al) through the toolset, you can designate certain items as 'droppable'.
When the NPC dies, the 'loot' identified as droppable remains.

And making NPCs immortal has pretty much become a consequence of dealing with the 'stupidity' of players. In previous RPGs too many players have gone around killing everything sight, only to find out later on that "Hey, wait a minute! You mean the guy who has the information I need is the same one I killed last week?" I don't blame developers for making 'plot' characters unkillable, given the number of people that end up complaining about dead-end plots as a result of dead NPCs. Also, the whole 'I killed Drizzt' kind of thing got old really fast...but, I digress....

I would like to see more versatile CRPGs, and from what I've seen through the toolset, a lot of that can be accomplished. However, the single player component wasn't made for that - it's really just a bonus, and an introduction to NWN. The true versatility is the DM client and multiplayer.

 

As I said (and Gnolyn reiterated), the drop and fade is a characteristic of THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO. It is not a characteristic of NWN play. Therefore, I don't think its a big deal.

Unkillable NPCs are, again, a product of the not having a DM. A DM can account for a player completely ruining the intended storyline and make up a new one. Prescripted games can't. In Morrowind, you get a message "Well, you can keep playing, but you can't finish now". Would that be better? If you kill Aarin Gend, Lord Nasher, or one of the other plot guys (all of whom are pretty obvious), its game over. The rest of the Neverwinter leaders are NOT going to be using you to save the day. The fact that a game is a roleplaying game does not mean you can play any conceivable role in a given predesigned adventure.

This type of thing happened in BG2 as well. You couldn't choose to just ignore Imoen and Irenicus. You couldn't kill either of them before Spellhold, no matter what you did. You couldn't be hostile to both Bodhi and the Shadow Thieves until chapter 4. If you did, you were killed instantly. Is that better than making them immortal?