Dead Levels

tim-cain system-design level-design rpg game-feel player-experience

Abstract

Problem: What are "dead levels" in RPGs — level-ups that grant nothing meaningful — and should designers include them?

Approach: Tim Cain defines dead levels, explains why he dislikes them, and proposes a staggered reward system that ensures every level-up feels impactful.

Findings: Dead levels undermine the core excitement of leveling up. By rotating chunky, distinct rewards across levels (perks one level, skill points the next, big HP gains the next), designers can eliminate dead levels entirely. Balancing these rewards requires iterative "stick a pin in it" methodology.

Key insight: Every level-up should be an event — something the player notices during gameplay, not just on the character sheet. Rewards must be chunky and impactful, not incremental.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1jhsgHE70

Context

Tim Cain responds to a viewer question from commenter "Ender," who asked about dead levels using D&D 3.5's fighter class (implemented in Tim's own game Temple of Elemental Evil) as an example — where a level 5 fighter gains nothing notable, and most odd fighter levels are similarly barren. Tim notes the cheekiness of using his own game against him, but clarifies that ToEE used the D&D 3.5 ruleset as-is, which he didn't design (though 3.5 remains his favorite D&D edition).

What Counts as a Dead Level

Tim defines a dead level broadly: not just levels where you get nothing, but also levels where you only receive small, non-impactful gains — a couple hit points, a few magic points, a skill point or two. If what you gain is:

  • Given every level (so it doesn't feel special)
  • Too small to notice in gameplay (2-3 HP vs. 10-20 HP)
  • Only visible on the character sheet, not in how the game feels

...then it's effectively dead.

The "Chunky and Impactful" Standard

The test for whether a reward is meaningful: does the player feel it during play?

  • Chunky example: 10-20 extra hit points lets you survive an additional skeleton hit. You notice: "I used to go down in two hits, now I last three or four." That's impactful.
  • Dead example: 2-3 extra hit points occasionally makes a difference, but usually doesn't. The player doesn't feel stronger.

The reward should make the player think "I'm going to go back and fight that boss now" — not just see a number tick up.

The Staggered Reward Solution

Instead of giving small amounts of everything each level, Tim proposes rotating three categories of chunky rewards on a three-level cycle:

  • Level 1, 4, 7... → New perk or ability (something active you want to try)
  • Level 2, 5, 8... → Large batch of skill points (enough to noticeably change gameplay)
  • Level 3, 6, 9... → Big chunk of hit points (10, 15, or 20 — not 2-3)

This means every single level-up delivers something big, impactful, and different. The player always has a reason to play "just 20 more minutes" to reach the next level.

Balancing the Numbers

Tim refers to two of his other design methodologies for tuning these systems:

  • Skill ranges and bonuses: How wide should skill ranges be (0-5? 0-100?)? The range determines how many skill points feel "chunky." Covered in his skill design video.
  • "Stick a pin in it" method: Pick initial values, keep designing. If everything still works, those values are fine. The moment something feels imbalanced or non-impactful, go back to the last pinned decision and adjust. This iterative approach lets you balance without getting paralyzed by choices.

Practical Constraints

Tim acknowledges he hasn't always achieved this ideal in his shipped games. Reasons include:

  • Licensed IPs that define the leveling system (like D&D 3.5 in ToEE)
  • Design fallbacks — plans to go back and fix dead levels that never got revisited due to time or budget constraints
  • The director doesn't always get their way — a recurring theme across Tim's videos

References