I've been playing a version of Dungeons & Dragons since I was invited to my first game in 1989. My first character was a Druid in a 2nd Edition game run by guys from my high school.
I got lost walking & taking the bus to his house. I eventually made it, walked in the house in the middle of combat, ran towards the group for about three rounds, and ... the game ended for the night. This was the age before cellphones & being able to google up someone's phone number. They had no idea where I was. There weren't really harsh feelings towards me. We had a laugh at the ridiculousness of the situation.
The very next week there was some falling out & the group disbanded.
31 years later, I've begun to truly chafe at the idea of how rigidly structured D&D style games have become.
Vertical vs. Horizontal Advancement
Especially when the games I'm in have fewer and fewer players (down to just solo at the moment), I feel that structured vertical advancement breaks down. Systems that are very rigid in their advancement must be modified to allow for more horizontal advancement. The numbers wouldn't get "bigger" per se, but the player would feel like their character becomes more broadly competent in that system.
I made reference to this in my post about why I hate Feat Walls:
Either make each individual feat kind of awesome as a discrete entity (leaning very awesome if they're so limited), or make the hard choice & provide an actual system of "alternative advancement" not tied to class & level, like Everquest's Alternative Advancement system. ("The alternative advancement system is a non-level-based advancement options for those level 51 and above. It was originally one of the features of EverQuest: Shadows of Luclin.") (link) Yes, this means adding a build point system into D&D. But, it also means acknowledging that vertical advancement (levels, or class levels) are different than horizontal advancement (expanding options within a level by accumulating a wider horizontal base of competency).
Obligatory Dark Souls Reference
