Why are you assuming that people come to you with already downleveled characters and might not even tell you that they leveled down? Shouldn’t we assume players are acting in good faith?
I always viewed DM discretion as “it is not allowed, unless I ask the DM beforehand, and maybe they say yes, maybe not”.
While we currently don’t have rules about downleveling, we have rules about homebrew - it is banned. Clarifying that downleveling can be allowed by DMs does not change the fact that homebrew is banned.
At the end it is the individual DM who has the final saying about what is allowed at their table and what isn’t. If a DM allows homebrew within reason, why shouldn’t they?
It’s the exact same issue as with characters at the lower end vs at the higher end of the same tier. The latter are always going to be more powerful and have more magic items in their repertoire than the former.
In fact, the downleveling did not help Ophelia at all compared to when she was still a “regular” T2 character. Back then she had the exact same set of magic items (Flame Tongue, Stirring Scaled Ornament, Wings of Flying) I used on friday. It was exactly the same as if I had played any old regular level 10 character.
(Also, the “outshining” you mention - that has nothing to do with her being downleveled from T3. She just was the only dedicated melee in our group (casters, artificers, rogue, ranger) and somewhat optimized for that role with GWM, which naturally resulted in her dealing the most damage in a fight against a solo monster.
She never used her Eldritch Smite, so she acted like a level 5 barbarian with extra health in combat. And everything she did after the fight just required two levels of Warlock for Eldritch Invocations and cantrips. I don’t think she ever used leveled spells.
So, at the end, she would have done exactly the same as a level 7 character.)
It is long exactly because that is needed to make it clear that DMs are free to disallow downleveling (because that seems to be very important for some people) and to make it not malleable, to avoid any loopholes. What issues do you see, where is that still malleable?
@Arthilas I think we just have fundamentally different approaches here. It is not that I automatically distrust people. It is more that we had incidents especially with newer players misunderstanding the VALUE rules. Like the one time a T2 guy brought a staff of power because he downleveled.
In the end neither of us will fully decide what to do. It is up to the court of public (DM) opinion. Maybe someone brings something completely new to the table.
I will not yap on about the Ophelia stuff. It was just something I and some other people noticed.
@Takanari
Understandable. My point was more in terms of mini-campaigns where fully decked characters can be problematic.
That is something DMs who run mini-campaigns in an open system like VALUE have to account for. While it could happen with a downleveled character, it can also occur in numerous other ways - such as by using a pre-existing decked-out character from the same or a lower tier, using the mini-campaign character in other games on days the campaign does not continue, DM reward magic items…
If downleveling (or any rule for that matter) is defined as an optional rule, everybody is expecting that they can use it.
E.g. Feats and Multiclassing in basic 5e.
I also think it is not reasonable to assume rules will not be used as written, but as intended.
This has been a problem for RPGs since time immemorial.
Therefore I think that even the formulation of downleveling, as optional as it might be intended, will not be optional.
I also think a straight up ban is overreach, but the formulation or even mention of it will in practice not make it optional and is therefore inadvisable.
(this is in addition of the other problems I pers. have with “downlevelling”)
aside from the other stuff … that is > TL;DR territory
thought a bit over this
… it is (at least for me) too much effort to look through characters and check level-per-level up
… might be easier (for me) to restrict the table when I am DM-ing something for VALUE
I have to disagree here. Making it permanent would lead to the issue that a player gets a level decrease approved by DM A and then plays at a later date at DM B’s table, who is strongly against downleveling - but by getting the downleveling approved by a different DM, the player gets around that. Keeping it temporary prevents that as the player would need to also get it approved by DM B (otherwise they’d have to play the character at their original level if possible or play a different character).
I don’t quite get why this would be an issue at all. If someone thinks about decreasing their level, they should only do so after they have asked and got your approval. Why would you assume that players just downlevel “in secret” without informing the DM? That’s assuming bad faith.
I think this describes my personal opinion quite well.
Our system for leveling up is essentially one where we decide that every adventure we play counts as a milestone, and we level up. So it seems like we are just giving and taking away levels. But if you think of it in turns of experience, there are very few ways that fit a story in which a character would logically downlevel. Maybe someone lost their memory (and where their magical items were and which spells they used to know and how to wear certain kinds of armor and how to be super strong…). If those things happen, sure, why not have a character downlevel permanently.
Sorry, I don’t understand how this classifies as a case for downleveling. If you know you are going to be playing a certain tier, then create a character for that tier. If you know what the adventure is going to be about and think that this would fit, create the “original” character’s brother, and have fun with them. Bonus, you’ll even have an extra character at that tier forever (or at least as long as you choose).
While I would say there are very few (see example above) cases that would allow a character to permanently downgrade, I see no reason why essentially “at will” downgrading (DM discretion or not) should be a thing. You can always create a lower level, very similar character.
the problem with this is, as @Arthilas mentioned, that those in favor of “downleveling” want to “Yoyo” (level down; level back up after the game; keep all rewards; ignore PC death? )
… indeed they do so already, since it has never been expl. forbidden and thus is a loophole that can be exploited (see Nepo’s post)
Which a) takes much more time at the table - which is relevant when you do not know yet at which table you are going to play or do not know the lore of the game you have signed up and thus couldn’t prrepare before coming to VALUE, and b) if it is the exact same character at a lower level, is even stranger in terms of story than a quick and easy downleveling of the existing character.
Btw, a permanent PC death should not be ignored for a downleveled character.
So I know I’m still fairly new in terms of DMing, but when you sign up for my table, I expect you to bring a character at that tier, and not create one while we’re supposed to be starting. I mean if it’s a new player who needs help, sure. But the whole “I don’t hvae a character at that tier” when you are perfectly capable of having a character at every tier… doesn’t really work for me.
If you’re going to have the problem repeatedly of wanting to play a character at different tiers, then for me the logical solution to that is to have 2 different characters at those different tiers. It saves you the entire hassle of up/downgrading repeatedly (which can be even more work than creating a new character).
It’s not the same character, though. I don’t think it’s strange to have a younger sibling or cousin or someone else who admires someone older be very similar to the older version, just less experienced. And as they go on their own adventures, the change will increase. That, to me, is a realistic scenario that’s not really hard to get your head around as a player or DM.
The situation last friday was that I did not know at which table I was going to play when I came to the location. We were still waiting for how many players were going to show up. I ended up getting a spot at @frogemiah’s table.
While I was thinking about which of my T2 characters I should play (and getting a new level 6 bard ready using one DM reward level-up), they recapped last session and the DM explained the setting. That was when I recognized the setting and thought it would be awesome if I could get my T3 character Ophelia back down to T2 and play her instead due to how well she would fit into the game.
Therefore I asked the DM about that - and the DM said yes.
Due to the lack of time (we all sat around the table and were ready to start), creating a new character wasn’t really an option, not even for me - the only options were either to play a character with no specific connection to the setting (either the new bard or one of my level 10 chars), or to play Ophelia, who actually has a very strong connection to the setting and storyline, but requires downleveling.
you could have easily made a new level 5 JRPG character (esp. since you have the app) or join the other table as a new level 1 character
… sorry … this is a non-argument … at least for me
While I think down-levelling does not make narrative sense and I wouldn’t allow it at my table, at the end of the day “the DM said yes” is what matters to me.
We’ve always been a “the DM has the final say at their table, but it stays at their table” group. This happens all the time with magic items, where DMs drop items that VALUE rules wouldn’t allow, and thus we say they’re homebrewed and not portable to other tables.
So even if we ban down-levelling, a DM can homebrew it in if they choose, by our normal practices. But a ban would prevent it from being done without the DM’s direct permission, which I think is a good thing. So we don’t need something super long, we can simply say:
“Down-levelling is prohibited. If a DM permits down-levelling at their table, the reduction in level is considered homebrewed, and applies only at that table. A character may not gain downtime days, levels, gold, equipment, or magic items at a session where they are down-levelled. If the character dies, the character death is considered permanent unless resurrected per VALUE rules.”
(in the case of a continued down-level campaign, the DM can also homebrew that the character can keep stuff, since the DM can homebrew most anything… but as homebrew, it stays at that DM’s table)
I wasn’t talking about your specific situation, though I realize I used “you”. What I meant was, when I am a DM, I want players to be ready to go.
There are some exceptions, like new players, who might just need extra help before the game starts. I can appreciate that many players want to have characters that are appropriate for their story.
I think that’s where the “Spoiler Alert” comes in - DMs can write in the forum about what their game is going to be about and players who want to make sure their characters match can ask ahead of playing and create an appropriate character.
If you (players/we/they) don’t sign up for a specific game/table, you (they/we) kind of just have to take whatever works and is most convenient. That would be a game that you (they/we) have a character for.
I’m trying to think about how I would have handled your specific situation. I think I would have felt like I’ve been put on the spot and I might have allowed you to downgrade, too. But I would have been upset about my inability to tell you no.
I really, really, really don’t like telling another DM what they can’t do at their own table. But you’re right, if someone is asking you face to face, then it’s a lot of pressure and I wouldn’t want that for a DM. Especially if it seems like that person might not have a place to play if you say no, or is really insistent… ugh, I really don’t like the concept of that pressure on people.
when I am DM-ing something for VALUE 
there is a solution for this:
