PDA

View Full Version : XP/"Leveling": is it *REALLY* necessary?



Geordnet
2013-05-16, 02:21 PM
Disclaimer:

My original OP contained a lot of misconceptions, which were promptly corrected. The current state of the discussion is very much different; at the time of this edit, it's mainly concerning the feasibility of a qualitative-advancement system.

Please read at least the two most recent pages to get a feel for where the discussion is before posting.


Original OP:
Not just XP, but gaining new skills, getting better gear, and becoming more powerful in general.

Level progression of some sort seems to be taken for granted in RPGs in general, but what does it actually add to the game? It doesn't matter within a specific encounter, encourages metagaming and solving every problem with blunt force, and is only necessary in a small fraction of stories. Here's just some of the fallacies I see:

But the number go up:
Raw power increase is, at heart, not really a change at all: your enemies will necessarily be getting similar boosts if the game is to remain fair. And since power is relative, you're back to square one again.

MOAR POWEH:
Whenever the players are confronted with a difficult challenge, their standard responce is to go out, level up, then try again using fundimentally the same method. Not to try a different strategy, or approach the problem from a different angle. On a related note, the usual way to make the villain "scary" is to have him start out at a much higher level than the PCs, which leads to a lot of PC deaths from premature confrontations... And also creates the illusion that no villain is ever invincible (causing more GM facepalms).

A master of all trades is a paragon of none:
Just as power level is relative, so is specialization. A character with a "high" rank in multiple skills is really just a very skilled generalist.

Crippling Overspecialization:
Because the game has to remain challenging to all levels, skill challanges also must scale with level. But this just means that a good specialist has all skills they don't actively specialize in become practically useless. New skill points (or the equivalent) must be spent constantly improving skills the character already has, if they are to remain relevant.

Meh, it's only a plus one sword:
Expecting to get plainly superior equipment later on devalues the equipment the PCs currently have. This is creates a conflict between the mechanics and roleplay: on the one hand, naming one's sword is very traditional and adds depth to the character; on the other, it's a horrible tactical decision to commit to using the same weapon 5-10 levels from now.

It's nothing I won't be able to do in a few levels:
Whenever there's advancement, it's the assumption that the players can reach any power level they want, given enough time. This makes it harder to make authoritative figures seem worthy of respect; and it's harder to make the game world seem bigger than just what the PCs do.

Slay him and take his experience points:
Why wouldn't the players have a reason to kill every living creature they come across if they know they'll be rewarded (however minimally) for it?

High score:
Encouraging "score keeping" can be either good or bad, depending on your players and the nature of the game. But either way, there are better ways to do this than XP; and the fact that it's as (or more) often a bad thing means it shouldn't be standard.

Quadratic Wizardry:
No level advancement means you don't ever have the problem of one class/build advancing faster than the other; and therefore it's much easier to balance them.

Munchkinry:
If there isn't any way to gain power, then logically there isn't any way to gain obscene amounts of power. If overall power is generally kept the same, then the best one can do is specialize to a specific situation -which has its own drawbacks.


So, I fail to see where the attraction is. Level/power advancement creates a whole host of problems, and I fail to see anything truly productive in it that can't be done in other, better ways.

Morbis Meh
2013-05-16, 02:27 PM
First of all it's nice to watch your characters grow instead of remain utterly static, secondly they gain more abilities so they now have a variety of options instead of what they had as a lowly peon and finally it gives something for the player to look forward to and plan for because they know after x many encounters they get something new to play with.

Emmerask
2013-05-16, 02:28 PM
Building characters is practically the one redeeming factor 3.5 has, if that would been taken away it would be one of the worst systems out there ^^

Anyway point buy systems don´t have levels but there you do improve on your skills (which include weapon skills).

Taking away improvement of characters in general is I think not a good idea because it does add a lot of incentive to the players and its kind of realistic that your character improves over the course of the trials he faces in certain areas.

Taking away levels and classes however I´m perfectly fine with that because pb systems imho are just plain better in almost all respects.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 02:29 PM
First of all it's nice to watch your characters grow instead of remain utterly static, secondly they gain more abilities so they now have a variety of options instead of what they had as a lowly peon and finally it gives something for the player to look forward to and plan for because they know after x many encounters they get something new to play with.

Character growth? That's RP.

New abilities? You don't need raw power for that.

Looking forwards? There are lots of things you can look forwards to.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 02:32 PM
It's nothing I won't be able to do in a few levels:
Whenever there's advancement, it's the assumption that the players can reach any power level they want, given enough time. This makes it harder to make authoritative figures seem worthy of respect; and it's harder to make the game world seem bigger than just what the PCs do.

You sound like you're shooting for something very gritty, where players are always inferior to those already in positions of power, and are basically pawns on the world stage.

One reason for levelling is that you can eventually get to the point where you're a major power in your own right, respected, and not outclassed by everyone above you. Sure, you can advance in respect, but that leads to being highly respected but comparatively useless skills wise. You may as well not have a system by that point, because it can't be used for anything much.

EDIT: I would also say that acquisition of new abilities but not upgrading old ones is still 'levelling'. You're basically multiclassing to hell and back, that's all. :smallamused:

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 02:35 PM
Taking away improvement of characters in general is I think not a good idea because it does add a lot of incentive to the players and its kind of realistic that your character improves over the course of the trials he faces in certain areas.

There are other incentives, like possibly saving the kingdom or something. :smalltongue:


And if you're talking about realism, the changes are very minor. You'd pick up a few new skills, maybe touch up on your old ones, but a rouge who loots an old tomb doesn't suddenly become a demigod of lockpicking. Advancement is horizontal more than vertical. (It's the vertical type I have a problem with here.)

ImperiousLeader
2013-05-16, 02:35 PM
I don't think it's strictly necessary, but it's a part of most RPG experiences.

Actually, I'm liking FATE Core's "advancement". You start reasonably competent, and building up skills is a fairly long process. As is gaining new Stunts or Refresh. But, your aspects can change to reflect your character's experience. So, while actually making your numbers bigger is hard, making your character reflect your experiences is not.

Morbis Meh
2013-05-16, 02:35 PM
Character growth? That's RP.

New abilities? You don't need raw power for that.

Looking forwards? There are lots of things you can look forwards to.

All your opinion sir, and now numerical growth not personal growth is what I am referring to. New abilities are gained via leveling up that is how the system works so remaining as is means no new skills or abilities. Being stuck as a level 1 character infinitely would be terrible and something I never would play ever. You're also neglecting to consider a lot of people like character building and planning, personally it's one of my favorite things to do for table tobs. IF you don't like how it works play a free form, as for me I have no idea why I bothered posting since this is a pointless, subjective topic. Have a good day sir but I do not understand why you created this topic in the first place.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 02:39 PM
So... you have problems with people getting better in what they're good at? If it was simply a matter of scale (D&D is ridiculous like this, yes) then I could understand it. But what you're saying is that you want horizontal level advancement but never actually improving?

I honestly can't understand this. A fresh recruit, never in combat, is going to be worse than a veteran warrior. A magician's apprentice, that might have trouble with a bucket of water and a broom, is going to be inferior to an elderly sage that has spent his lifetime exploring arcane mysteries. Someone with a university education in a topic will no more than a random guy off the street.

Why the issue with people being able to get better at what they do through experience? :smallconfused:

Grinner
2013-05-16, 02:42 PM
Not just XP, but gaining new skills, getting better gear, and becoming more powerful in general.

Level progression of some sort seems to be taken for granted in RPGs in general, but what does it actually add to the game? It doesn't matter within a specific encounter, encourages metagaming and solving every problem with blunt force, and is only necessary in a small fraction of stories. Here's just some of the fallacies I see:

But the number go up:
Raw power increase is, at heart, not really a change at all: your enemies will necessarily be getting similar boosts if the game is to remain fair. And since power is relative, you're back to square one again.

MOAR POWEH:
Whenever the players are confronted with a difficult challenge, their standard responce is to go out, level up, then try again using fundimentally the same method. Not to try a different strategy, or approach the problem from a different angle. On a related note, the usual way to make the villain "scary" is to have him start out at a much higher level than the PCs, which leads to a lot of PC deaths from premature confrontations... And also creates the illusion that no villain is ever invincible (causing more GM facepalms).

A master of all trades is a paragon of none:
Just as power level is relative, so is specialization. A character with a "high" rank in multiple skills is really just a very skilled generalist.

Crippling Overspecialization:
Because the game has to remain challenging to all levels, skill challanges also must scale with level. But this just means that a good specialist has all skills they don't actively specialize in become practically useless. New skill points (or the equivalent) must be spent constantly improving skills the character already has, if they are to remain relevant.

Meh, it's only a plus one sword:
Expecting to get plainly superior equipment later on devalues the equipment the PCs currently have. This is creates a conflict between the mechanics and roleplay: on the one hand, naming one's sword is very traditional and adds depth to the character; on the other, it's a horrible tactical decision to commit to using the same weapon 5-10 levels from now.

It's nothing I won't be able to do in a few levels:
Whenever there's advancement, it's the assumption that the players can reach any power level they want, given enough time. This makes it harder to make authoritative figures seem worthy of respect; and it's harder to make the game world seem bigger than just what the PCs do.

Slay him and take his experience points:
Why wouldn't the players have a reason to kill every living creature they come across if they know they'll be rewarded (however minimally) for it?

High score:
Encouraging "score keeping" can be either good or bad, depending on your players and the nature of the game. But either way, there are better ways to do this than XP; and the fact that it's as (or more) often a bad thing means it shouldn't be standard.

Quadratic Wizardry:
No level advancement means you don't ever have the problem of one class/build advancing faster than the other; and therefore it's much easier to balance them.

Munchkinry:
If there isn't any way to gain power, then logically there isn't any way to gain obscene amounts of power. If overall power is generally kept the same, then the best one can do is specialize to a specific situation -which has its own drawbacks.


So, I fail to see where the attraction is. Level/power advancement creates a whole host of problems, and I fail to see anything truly productive in it that can't be done in other, better ways.

How many RPGs have you played, or even just read? It sounds like you're only familiar with D&D.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 02:43 PM
You sound like you're shooting for something very gritty, where players are always inferior to those already in positions of power, and are basically pawns on the world stage.
I want them to feel awed by things they should be awed by, like God or the forces of nature. I don't want them to feel like they own the place, like they can do things without consequences, like they're the center of the universe.

That doesn't mean they're worthless, though; or can't make a difference. Just look at Frodo. :smalltongue:



One reason for levelling is that you can eventually get to the point where you're a major power in your own right, respected, and not outclassed by everyone above you.
Who says you weren't there to start with? :smallconfused:

In terms of physical prowess, at least. Political etc. power can always be gained through RP.



EDIT: I would also say that acquisition of new abilities but not upgrading old ones is still 'levelling'. You're basically multiclassing to hell and back, that's all. :smallamused:
It's a different sort of advancement though, for sure. Something of a balance between the two types is probably the best, but from my point of view the scale is so skewed it's vertical.

Lord Torath
2013-05-16, 02:44 PM
I don't think leveling is required, as long as improvement is still possible. Shadowrun (2E, the only edition I ever played) did not have level, but at the end of each adventure, you earned "Karma" that you could spend on improving your skills or stats (or keep for extra dice in a pinch). I only played for a short while, but I quite enjoyed it!

snoopy13a
2013-05-16, 02:45 PM
You sound like you're shooting for something very gritty, where players are always inferior to those already in positions of power, and are basically pawns on the world stage.

One reason for levelling is that you can eventually get to the point where you're a major power in your own right, respected, and not outclassed by everyone above you. Sure, you can advance in respect, but that leads to being highly respected but comparatively useless skills wise. You may as well not have a system by that point, because it can't be used for anything much.

EDIT: I would also say that acquisition of new abilities but not upgrading old ones is still 'levelling'. You're basically multiclassing to hell and back, that's all. :smallamused:

Not necessarily. Power isn't always about raw ability and strength. Part of it is forging relationships and bonds to develop a power structure. A game can exist where the players start with high potential and aptitude (that is, their stats are comparable to the most powerful NPCs) but little social influence. As the game progresses, they do not gain any new abilities but they develop social capital.

Scow2
2013-05-16, 02:46 PM
Have you tried any other RPG systems, like Savage Worlds, GURPS, or Ironclaw?

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 02:49 PM
How to make players incapable of challenging God or forces of nature: don't give them stats. At all.

What's the rule for fighting Caine in V:tM? Oh, right: 'You lose'.

I don't see the need to cap people's abilities to some fixed level, and say 'no matter how much you try, this is the limit' and say 'horizontal advancement only', because that seems less realistic. You end up with a party of polymaths. Weird, honestly.


Not necessarily. Power isn't always about raw ability and strength. Part of it is forging relationships and bonds to develop a power structure. A game can exist where the players start with high potential and aptitude (that is, their stats are comparable to the most powerful NPCs) but little social influence. As the game progresses, they do not gain any new abilities but they develop social capital.

That... isn't what I was replying to, though. :smallconfused:

Eldan
2013-05-16, 02:50 PM
Well. You mention bigger numbers and obsolete equipment, which are two particular aspects that I dislike about levelling.

HOwever, what I want from levelling are new abilities. I think without those, the game would eventually get stale. Not necessarily even more powerful ones, though that's nice. Just more.

Another thing is that I like systems that allow me to have a group at different levels of power. I don't necessarily need a way to grow Jim Commoner into William the Kickass, Saviour of Earth. But I quite like having one system which can represent both, and all the levels of power in between.

Edit: Also, no game I know, and certainly not D&D give XP for just killing things pointlessly. And any adventure where the players can just leave, level up and come back has some serious flaws in its writing.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 02:52 PM
All your opinion sir, and now numerical growth not personal growth is what I am referring to.
Well, ability is completely relative. All that really matters is the ratios between the aspects of your character, and the way those aspects interact with each other and opponents.


New abilities are gained via leveling up that is how the system works so remaining as is means no new skills or abilities.
Not if you could swap out old abilities for new ones.


Being stuck as a level 1 character infinitely would be terrible and something I never would play ever.
Who said anything about level 1? You'd be stuck at 10, 15, 20; or whatever level you have the most fun at.


You're also neglecting to consider a lot of people like character building and planning, personally it's one of my favorite things to do for table tobs.
Need I explain that it's what I dislike the most? We don't have to play the same game.


IF you don't like how it works play a free form, as for me I have no idea why I bothered posting since this is a pointless, subjective topic. Have a good day sir but I do not understand why you created this topic in the first place.
Because I don't want to play free-form. I want hard rules, but not advancement. :smallyuk:

Emmerask
2013-05-16, 02:52 PM
And if you're talking about realism, the changes are very minor. You'd pick up a few new skills, maybe touch up on your old ones, but a rouge who loots an old tomb doesn't suddenly become a demigod of lockpicking. Advancement is horizontal more than vertical. (It's the vertical type I have a problem with here.)

There are numerous rpg systems that pretty much do what you want, most of them pointbuy systems (no level ups) gurps, dark eye etc

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 02:53 PM
Not necessarily. Power isn't always about raw ability and strength. Part of it is forging relationships and bonds to develop a power structure. A game can exist where the players start with high potential and aptitude (that is, their stats are comparable to the most powerful NPCs) but little social influence. As the game progresses, they do not gain any new abilities but they develop social capital.

This is the sort of thing that would replace the XP system, for some of its good purposes at least.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 02:54 PM
HOwever, what I want from levelling are new abilities. I think without those, the game would eventually get stale. Not necessarily even more powerful ones, though that's nice. Just more.

You can have them! That's just changing your specialization status, with a minor overall power increase. :smalltongue:

TheCountAlucard
2013-05-16, 02:55 PM
As always, the game is itself a factor. 3.5 is a prime target, but others, not so much.


Level progression of some sort seems to be taken for granted in RPGs in generalCareful there; there's more than a few RPGs where levels aren't a thing, and some where it is, but doesn't quite work that way.

Example: in Mummy: the Curse, a character's power-stat goes down as play continues.

Example: in most versions of Paranoia, PCs are so short-lived that there's little to no advancement to be had; if it does occur, it's often done by fiat.



…but what does it actually add to the game?A universal answer can't be given.


It doesn't matter within a specific encounter,It can.


…encourages metagaming and solving every problem with blunt force…It doesn't have to.


…and is only necessary in a small fraction of stories.…and those of us who tell those kinds of stories like it very much, thank you.

I strongly suspected your primary experience with this is in 3.5, but I advise you to be more open to other systems. As such, I'm going to address your "fallacies."


But the number go up:
Raw power increase is, at heart, not really a change at all: your enemies will necessarily be getting similar boosts if the game is to remain fair. And since power is relative, you're back to square one again.First off, who's to say the game has to be fair in the first place? Second, power isn't always equal to numbers.

Example: In Exalted, a Solar and a Dragon-Blooded might have similar combat skills and mystical puissance, but at the same XP total, the Solar is better off than the Dragon-Blooded. Not because of higher numbers (though that can be a factor), but because his powers let him do different, and often more effective, things.


Whenever the players are confronted with a difficult challenge, their standard responce is to go out, level up, then try again using fundimentally the same method. Not to try a different strategy, or approach the problem from a different angle. On a related note, the usual way to make the villain "scary" is to have him start out at a much higher level than the PCs, which leads to a lot of PC deaths from premature confrontations... And also creates the illusion that no villain is ever invincible (causing more GM facepalms).I see problems with this statement, all over the place.

First off, players having the intelligence of goldfish is really not something that should be blamed on the system.

Second, even in 3.5 games, your fire Mage is going to have a hell of a time trying to burn a fire elemental, even when he gets access to a whole new level of fire spells.

Third, why should villains be invincible? That's all kinds of boring.

I'm gonna take a break from this and go on to the next one.


A master of all trades is a paragon of none:
Just as power level is relative, so is specialization. A character with a "high" rank in multiple skills is really just a very skilled generalist.So?


Crippling Overspecialization:
Because the game has to remain challenging to all levels, skill challanges also must scale with level. But this just means that a good specialist has all skills they don't actively specialize in become practically useless. New skill points (or the equivalent) must be spent constantly improving skills the character already has, if they are to remain relevant.Again, this seems so 3.5-centric that it's actually starting to hurt. In Shadowrun, your skills have a cap; there's only so much skill you can have at computer hacking, only so much cyberware you can shove into your body. Eventually branching out is not only viable, it becomes necessary; what else can you do with all this XP?

World of Darkness games are likewise not so hidebound; if you set out with it in mind, you can be as good as it's possible to be at something, at character creation.

Exalted is similarly capped. You eventually stop advancing your Melee skill directly, and any further improvement there is either in complementary Abilities, or developing special techniques with which to use your amazing skills.


Meh, it's only a plus one sword:
Expecting to get plainly superior equipment later on devalues the equipment the PCs currently have. This is creates a conflict between the mechanics and roleplay: on the one hand, naming one's sword is very traditional and adds depth to the character; on the other, it's a horrible tactical decision to commit to using the same weapon 5-10 levels from now.Not all RPGs do this, either. For some, equipment is only as important as you want to make it (World of Darkness, Star Wars Saga Edition), and in some, you can start out with the best level of equipment you're going to be able to get (Shadowrun, World of Darkness), and in some, you're already whipping out earth-shattering artifacts at the first game session (Exalted, Scion, Mage, Mythenders)


It's nothing I won't be able to do in a few levels:
Whenever there's advancement, it's the assumption that the players can reach any power level they want, given enough time. This makes it harder to make authoritative figures seem worthy of respect; and it's harder to make the game world seem bigger than just what the PCs do.Pfffft! :biggrin:

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Vampire PCs in Masquerade are realistically never going to equal, say, a Methuselah, no matter how much XP they get. And I'd like to see a Lunar who can practice Sidereal Martial Arts. :smallamused:


Slay him and take his experience points:
Why wouldn't the players have a reason to kill every living creature they come across if they know they'll be rewarded (however minimally) for it?Hopefully because they're not utter sociopaths? :smallconfused: But there's a plethora of systems that don't reward players for being murder-hobos, enough such that I'm not going to bother listing them all.

Scratch that, I'm gonna do it after all:
All of them, even 3.5e.

The aforementioned problem is one with your group, not the game. :smallsigh:


High score:
Encouraging "score keeping" can be either good or bad, depending on your players and the nature of the game. But either way, there are better ways to do this than XP; and the fact that it's as (or more) often a bad thing means it shouldn't be standard.I've never seen it turn bad, so you're doing something vastly differently. Might I once again suggest it's a group problem?


Quadratic Wizardry:
No level advancement means you don't ever have the problem of one class/build advancing faster than the other; and therefore it's much easier to balance them.Some things are inherently unbalanced, sometimes even intentionally. Mages in the World of Darkness are perhaps the most powerful splat across the whole game line, with a possible exception being a chargen Mummy. This was intentional. Exalts are straight-up going to make mortals look like chumps, because one intent of the game is to explore having power and the consequences thereof, and that's just fine!


Munchkinry:
If there isn't any way to gain power, then logically there isn't any way to gain obscene amounts of power. If overall power is generally kept the same, then the best one can do is specialize to a specific situation -which has its own drawbacks.Skipping this one.


So, I fail to see where the attraction is.Your failure is your problem.

1337 b4k4
2013-05-16, 03:03 PM
Not necessary. Traveler. QED.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 03:03 PM
How to make players incapable of challenging God or forces of nature: don't give them stats. At all.
Pretty much yeah; but what if you want something that's on the border? Like, for instance, a dragon: as powerful as the forces of nature, indeed -but not unconquerable. That's a narrow "sweet spot" to hit, and if the target is moving it becomes extremely difficult.

Oh, and never underestimate player stupidity! :smalltongue:



I don't see the need to cap people's abilities to some fixed level, and say 'no matter how much you try, this is the limit' and say 'horizontal advancement only', because that seems less realistic.
I want it because I want to focus on solving the problems I am presented with the tools that I have, rather than being expected to go out and get the proper tools. Finding a clever solution to a problem is infinitely more fun for me than a stealth fetch quest.



You end up with a party of polymaths. Weird, honestly.
And you end up with a party of demigods. :smalltongue:

Both methods can be taken to excess.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 03:04 PM
This is the sort of thing that would replace the XP system, for some of its good purposes at least.

But if you don't want to play a game of political intrigue, such a thing is unpleasant at best.

What you seem to be asking for is advancement by arbitrary DM fiat, which doesn't really mesh with a hard system. Either you get abilities for reaching fixed goals (levelling up) or you gain abilities piece by piece for a cost paid through achieving something or other (an XP system). I'm... honestly confused by this.

Do you just want a non-XP, non-levelling way to advance, or do you have something against the concept of getting better and not just more versatile?


Pretty much yeah; but what if you want something that's on the border? Like, for instance, a dragon: as powerful as the forces of nature, indeed -but not unconquerable. That's a narrow "sweet spot" to hit, and if the target is moving it becomes extremely difficult.

Also vaguely defined.


I want it because I want to focus on solving the problems I am presented with the tools that I have, rather than being expected to go out and get the proper tools. Finding a clever solution to a problem is infinitely more fun for me than a stealth fetch quest.

Assign IC restrictions on not doing that, like a time limit. The ability to grow vertically does not mean you have infinite time to do things and don't problem solve.

Jerthanis
2013-05-16, 03:05 PM
The purpose of advancement in RPGs is to serve as a concrete metaphor for the distance the characters have taken on their journey. The satisfaction we get out of a story often resolves in seeing characters we like in a better position than where they started off. PC power is one way that this can manifest.

The idea that your humble town guard sets out on a journey, and when he's finished, any position below King's Personal Bodyguard seems absurd, that's a demonstration of this character winding up in a better position than he started.

Personally, I prefer less or no mechanical advancement, primarily to emphasize the personal character growth as the mechanism for this 'character arc concluding with the character ahead of where they started' sense... but mechanical advancement when viewed in this light is slightly less silly.

Mordar
2013-05-16, 03:05 PM
There are a number of ways different RPGs handle character improvement (to differentiate from "growth of character", I'll define improvement as gaining new or enhanced abilities, improving skills, increasing stats and so forth).

How to Improve
Some use levels as switches...you gain a new level, you get new or improved stuff from a set list or with minor flexibility (e.g. D&D).

Some use pools of "points" - call them development points, hero points, karma, whatever - that you invest into the things you want to improve (e.g. Deadlands, Savage Worlds, Marvel Superheroes).

Sometimes this point system is tied to moving "levels" which unlocks options, but generally not the case (e.g. EarthDawn). Sometimes it goes the other way - you gain levels based on experience and then get points to spend (e.g. RoleMaster).

Sometimes, the game employs a "use it to improve it" methodology, allowing a chance for skill improvement after an adventure if you use that skill successfully. Again, this is not a level-based system.

Additionally, as RPGs have "matured", most have moved away from the idea of opponents as bags of EXP that you have to cut open to recover. There are whole hosts of other ways to gain experience, and the bag of EXP can also be earned by avoiding combat. While your mileage may vary, the execution of this is often controlled by the gamemaster and players.

Impact of Improvement
For most games, particularly of the mainstream variety, there is a fairly stable progression of "power" (which isn't a bad word on its own) or ability improvement, that in turn provides more of whatever the game is designed to enhance [survivability/killability/options]. There's a clear advantage to being a Level 5 Fighter as compared to a Level 3 Fighter.

Some games blur these lines, like EarthDawn. Generally a Circle 5 Warrior will have a clear advantage over a Circle 3 Warrior, but because of the system flexibility, one could easily make a Circle 2 Warrior that could beat either the Circle 3 or Circle 5 Warrior, even without "gimping" them.

Then there are games where characters hardly move from their starting blocks at all, even after months/years of play. Marvel Superheroes, for instance, and many WoD games are often meant to be played with "semi-static" characters who get a little better at what they do, but seldom move from only being able to handle figurative Kobolds to figurative Dragons.

However, the key question is more along the lines of...

Why to Improve
Some games have such a spectrum of material from which to draw adversaries that for all of them to be an appropriate opponent for a given character, either that character must improve (just like the famous heroes we generally like in novels and stories that spawned the game), or the player must use a different character completely. Since a major point of RPGs is for them to be longitudinal and not just one-offs like a board game, swapping characters is contrary to the intent. These characters are meant to be part of a series of books, if you will, with growth *and* improvement. Taren moves from Assistant Pig Keeper to High King. "But the number goes up" is necessary so that the hero can try to face the dragon, not so all the encounters become easier.

Other games, however, are meant to be a single novel (or comic book series) where there are changes, but they are modest. Spiderman might learn improve his dodging skill, or increase mental toughness, through the course of an arc, but generally (clones notwithstanding) isn't going to sprout 4 more arms or build a suit of armor. Those kinds of changes are very rare.

Depending on the game played and story told, different "Hows", "Impacts" and "Whys" come into play.

So, the answer about necessity really depends on the game design, and to a lesser extent, the setting. Regardless, however, you will get POWAH GAMERZ, munchkins, optimizers trying to beat the systems, and all those other issues you identified. The rest really seem to have more to do with the qualities of the individual player than the system (though I agree that certain systems by nature may attract more of those kinds of players).

A handful of your concerns really fall more as a failing of the GM than the system (barring extra-obnoxious players) - the pooh-poohing of magic/NPCs etc., but again I agree that there is added difficulty in systems with clearly defined power growth.

tl;dr: Different systems handle this different ways for different reasons.

Now, I am curious...what is the better way to handle the spectrum of adversaries our wandering fantasy hero needs to face to move from pig boy to King of Aquilonia?

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 03:06 PM
First, I really get the sense your experience with RPGs may be limited to D&D and maybe some similar games. That's not a good basis for talking general RPG theory, honestly.


But the number go up:
Raw power increase is, at heart, not really a change at all: your enemies will necessarily be getting similar boosts if the game is to remain fair. And since power is relative, you're back to square one again.

That's an assertion. It may be try in some cases, but it is not an universal truth.

In a "status quo" world (to use the horribly bad choice of words the 3.X DMG does), becoming more powerful usually means you can do more important things. You can take on dragons instead of big wolves. That is a huge difference. Meanwhile, you may still be dealing with "regular" creatures that are now less of a challenge.

Basically, in a world with any realism, being more powerful may mean that your actually challenges are also greater - obviously! - but it also means you have a greater ability to affect the world. You can make bigger choices that have greater consequences.


MOAR POWEH:
Whenever the players are confronted with a difficult challenge, their standard responce is to go out, level up, then try again using fundimentally the same method. Not to try a different strategy, or approach the problem from a different angle. On a related note, the usual way to make the villain "scary" is to have him start out at a much higher level than the PCs, which leads to a lot of PC deaths from premature confrontations... And also creates the illusion that no villain is ever invincible (causing more GM facepalms).


This is entirely system-dependent. However...

It's a perfectly logical approach! If you're up against an apparently insurmountable challenge, one perfectly sensible - and typical, outside of RPGs - response is to go out and find a power that can overcome it. You need to kill a dragon? You go find a dragon-slaying sword. That is good! It means player choices can create player-driven adventures! That's wonderful.


A master of all trades is a paragon of none:
Just as power level is relative, so is specialization. A character with a "high" rank in multiple skills is really just a very skilled generalist.

Can you clarify this complaint? What does this mean? In almost all systems, if I invest in a lot of skill, then I won't be as good at a particular one as someone who invests only in that. That's sensible, right? You're able to handle more situations, but aren't necessarily the first choice if your whole group is there and able to make the choice. (Neither a given.)


Crippling Overspecialization:
Because the game has to remain challenging to all levels, skill challanges also must scale with level. But this just means that a good specialist has all skills they don't actively specialize in become practically useless. New skill points (or the equivalent) must be spent constantly improving skills the character already has, if they are to remain relevant.

This sounds entirely like a complaint about D&D. It really doesn't apply to most other RPGs.

Many RPGs have internal "challenge ratings": for instance, you roll d100 against your own skill value. You absolutely get better at handling challenges you come across in a system like this.


Meh, it's only a plus one sword:
Expecting to get plainly superior equipment later on devalues the equipment the PCs currently have. This is creates a conflict between the mechanics and roleplay: on the one hand, naming one's sword is very traditional and adds depth to the character; on the other, it's a horrible tactical decision to commit to using the same weapon 5-10 levels from now.

A D&D problem, pretty exclusively. (And completely ignores the fact that, even in 3.X, you can keep improving the same weapon.) Did you know there are actually RPGs where continuing to use the same weapon for heroic deeds makes it better?


It's nothing I won't be able to do in a few levels:
Whenever there's advancement, it's the assumption that the players can reach any power level they want, given enough time. This makes it harder to make authoritative figures seem worthy of respect; and it's harder to make the game world seem bigger than just what the PCs do.

:smallamused:

How long do you think it takes to reach, say, 15th level in AD&D 1E/2E, on average? If the rules are being followed, it's a heck of a long time. Again, 3.X complaint (and one rooted in a very adversarial sort of DM-player dynamic IMO).


Slay him and take his experience points:
Why wouldn't the players have a reason to kill every living creature they come across if they know they'll be rewarded (however minimally) for it?

That's not even how XP works in D&D! Nevermind how, in older D&D, like AD&D 1E (and 2E if you use the rule) the risk of combat is almost never worth the XP you get for it, and you get the real XP points for treasure (the usual goal of your adventures).


Basically, if you'd kept your complaints to D&D, fair enough. But you generalized them:


Not just XP, but gaining new skills, getting better gear, and becoming more powerful in general.

Level progression of some sort seems to be taken for granted in RPGs in general, but what does it actually add to the game? It doesn't matter within a specific encounter, encourages metagaming and solving every problem with blunt force, and is only necessary in a small fraction of stories.

It just comes across as you having very little experience with different RPGs and systems.

However, even if you'd kept your complaints to D&D...


So, I fail to see where the attraction is. Level/power advancement creates a whole host of problems, and I fail to see anything truly productive in it that can't be done in other, better ways.

If you're only playing single-shot games, sure, advancement isn't necessary. But if you keep playing the same characters, they should become capable of taking on greater challenges. As characters become heroes, they go on to bigger and bigger challenges. As they do new things, they learn them. They become capable of wielding more and more influence on the world. They become tougher to prove they've been through things. Why should a PC veteran of a hundred expeditions into the Undermountain be no more powerful than a complete newbie PC?

How would you create a game with no character advancement where PCs can go from fighting 3' puny goblins to fighting 100' long dragons? How do you accommodate that range of raw power in potential opponents to heroes without character advancement?

Also, have you played... OD&D, BECMI D&D, AD&D 1E/2E, RuneQuest, HeroQuest, Artesia: AKW, Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, Twilight 2000/2013, Cyberpunk 2013/2020, Traveller, 2300 AD, GURPS, HârnMaster, Rolemaster/MERP, World of Darkness, Legend of Five Rings, Lord of the Rings, Pendragon, The Dark Eye... anything that's not 3.X/d20/4E?

Basically, how much do you know about what sort of systems there are and how character development works in them?

SimonMoon6
2013-05-16, 03:08 PM
I too hate the idea of "levels" and all of that, at least in the way that D&D has traditionally done so. Many games have ways for your character to improve without huge quantum leaps in power gain.

For example, in your standard Call of Cthulhu game, you might get an increase in a skill (by d6% out of 100%) or you might gain a spell... which will make you go crazy if you cast it and otherwise will only do something minor that won't help much... or you might gain "Power"... which helps in casting those spells you don't want to cast.

Or in a superhero game, you might get incremental increases to your character's superhuman strength (or other ability scores)... without suddenly going, "Oh, today's the day that I can cast Wish."

So, it is possible to have the power level increases that keep players coming back for more without it being so hugely life-altering the way that D&D level-ups are.

And I *hate* the idea of starting off as a peon. I don't want to play a peon. I want to play a hero. Let me start as a hero.

And, okay, once I get to be a hero in a D&D game, what happens? Congratulations, the campaign's over because D&D doesn't handle high-powered characters very well. So, if I put up with being a peon who might get killed by a spider or a rat long enough, my reward is killing the campaign? No thanks.

And it's much harder for a GM to run a "sandbox" game (which are the best games), since any forgotten or ignored plot-thread which is temporarily ignored becomes completely moot later.

"Ha ha, you forgot about the Ogre King! He's more than a match for you mere peons!"

"Oh, yeah? I cast Time Stop followed by Power Word Win."

It just. doesn't. work.

Oh, wait, I forgot I had a rant on this subject already written up:


Why I Hate Games with Levels

The great thing about a superhero RPG (especially one without levels) is that you get to start the game as a superhero. You don't have to have ten adventures as Clark Kent before you get to become Superman. You get to start as Superman. (Well, usually not Superman, but certainly Batman or Spider-Man or whoever.)

But in a game with levels, you usually have to start at first level. You have to play a nobody. Only after many adventures do you finally get to be the hero that you wanted to be at the beginning. Of course, even then, there's a catch because usually by the time you've finally managed to become the hero you wanted to play from the very beginning of the game... well, the game's over. Some would say that levels are a good thing because they keep you coming back to play, hoping to get that next level. But that's just cruel, giving someone false hope like that, telling them if they just keep playing long enough, their character will finally be cool... only to tell them that the game must end as soon as this character becomes cool. Any DM that ends a D&D campaign at tenth level? I'm talking about you. But regardless, D&D has a "planned obsolence" feature to characters. The game simply breaks down and becomes virtually unplayable at high levels, even if you have a DM who's willing to continue running the game. So, you might think, "I can't wait until I'm 15th level so I can have that neat new class ability" but it doesn't matter because the game must end not long after you get it. As someone who has run decently long campaigns (one lasting ten years, another running five), I hate the idea of only being able to play my character for one year before he's retired.

And another related issue is my dislike of the standard D&D (3.0 and after) setting, in which your character is specifically meant to be unimportant. You might think you have a cool wizard, but he's just a first level nobody in a city where there are literally (yes, "literally" not "figuratively) thousands of wizards more powerful than him. The only reason that he gets to go on an adventure is that the other wizards are too lazy to do it themselves. It's not like they couldn't. The highest level wizard in a city could handle *all* the adventures your character ever has all by himself if he felt like it. Your character isn't important to the story of this world. He could be replaced by any of the many other guys just like him (but better) in any given city. You don't get to be Gandalf, the one wizard that could possibly save the day. You're not even Harry Potter... you're Ron Weasely or Neville Longbottom. And who wants to be that?

I remember one fellow player/GM who suggested that "you need to earn" the power that comes with higher levels. Excuse me? Why exactly? And who needs to do the earning? If the character needs to earn the power, let me just write up an exciting background that tells you all the amazing feats that the character has performed before I have to play him. If it's just that the character needs to be worthy, I can write a story describing how worthy he is. But if it's literally "me" the player that needs to earn this power... hell, I've been playing and GM-ing RPGs for umpteen years now. I think if anyone has earned the right to play a powerful character, I have.

And honestly, does anybody get excited about a first level adventure? Yay, it's kobolds. Again. Or rats in a sewer. Again. And, while yes, any good GM can make any setting interesting and exciting, I have to say that first level adventures have certain built in limitations that make them the least interesting or exciting adventures of all. The characters can't *do* anything yet, so the GM can't build an adventure around your great abilities to teleport and fly... and heck, he can't even count on you being able to open locks or open secret doors. (True story: there was one 1st or 2nd level D&D 3.0 adventure I was on in which none of the PCs had the Search skill and we all had a penalty to Wisdom. The only way to survive a certain part of the adventure involved finding a secret door with the standard DC 20. Well, none of use could find the door even taking 20. So, TPK.) So, you won't get to show off your cool abilities since the adventure won't be designed to let you... or, if it's designed for you to show off your cool abilities, instead, you'll just die because you don't have those cool abilities. And you're also fragile as eggshells so you can't fight cool monsters like demons or dragons. No, it's kobolds and rats. Sigh. Who the hell finds kobolds and rats exciting?

And, really, what purpose does leveling up serve for a character? Oh, sure, you become more powerful. But do you still get to fight those weak enemies? Will my 20th level wizard still be fighting kobolds and rats, teaching them a lesson that they won't soon forget? No. Once you're powerful enough that kobolds are no match for you, you fight orcs. And then ogres. And then trolls. And so forth. The fact that you are theoretically more powerful is irrelevant because your enemies increase in power at the same rate. I mean, imagine a game where every level, the damage you can do doubles. Sounds great, right? But what if your enemies double their hit points every time you go up a level? Well, then it's a wash. You might technically be more powerful, but you can't tell that you are.

So really the only thing that matters when you go up a level is "what cool new powers do I get?" But D&D dungeons don't really handle cool new powers very well. So many standard traps and hazards can be completely ignored by the application of the right spells or abilities. And yet a dungeon full of traps and hazards is the standard model for a D&D adventure. Sigh. Yes, a good DM can make a cool adventure that isn't yet another dungeon. But most DMs I've encountered will simply make things suddenly immune to all your cool powers, like having permanent anti-magic fields and other areas immune to scry and teleport. Or have your wizard encounter golems that are immune to all spells (except ones you don't have). And that's because most DM's are so used to low-level adventures that they can't figure out how to make a cool adventure for characters of higher levels (hint: dungeons aren't cool at high levels). And that's why having DMs run games with low level characters all the time is a problem. I mean, what's the point in getting cool new powers if I can't use them?

So, I ask, what's so great about having levels in a game?

Now that's not to say that I think superhero games (my earlier example) are in all ways superior to D&D. The problem with most superhero games is that you're fighting to keep the status quo, so adventure types are pretty limited. You can't be proactive, you have to wait for the villains to start some trouble so you can stop it. In a fantasy setting (in theory at least), you could have more proactive options if the DM lets you (even if in practice, you're just going to go through yet another dungeon). There's more of a chance that you could affect the world in a D&D game than you could in a superhero game. But really, a good GM can make any setting interesting. So, given that you can't control whether or not the GM is good, all you can hope for are game mechanics that give you what you want. And levelling-up games rarely satisfy me.

Also, as a DM, I often like to give the players options rather than railroading them. I might give them a few different adventure hooks so they can decide which ones appeal to them. Maybe they'll go to one adventure first and then go on to the one they didn't do the first time. This is fine in a game where character advancement is reasonably slow (because you already start off powerful). But in a game with D&D style levelling, after the first adventure, they're way too powerful to handle the other adventure. So, this GM-ing style simply won't work. Instead, you have to railroad the party into a level-appropriate dungeon. And that's truly unfortunate.

valadil
2013-05-16, 03:13 PM
I like getting new mechanics. If I played the same build for a whole campaign with no changes, I'd get bored of the mechanical aspects of it. Gaining a new level of spells gives me new decisions to make.

That said, if you wanted a game with less focus on mechanics, not giving the players new mechanics to work with might help. I might be less inclined to poke the optional goblin fight if I didn't have new spells to try out.

PersonMan
2013-05-16, 03:16 PM
It doesn't matter within a specific encounter, encourages metagaming and solving every problem with blunt force, and is only necessary in a small fraction of stories.

I've never seen this in my gaming experience. Perhaps it's because I play games in which we have obstacles like "raiders attacking the village we need to defend to get so-and-so resurrected right now" which you can't solve by leaving for several weeks to go and train up.

It sounds like a group problem, not a system issue, to me.


But the number go up:
Raw power increase is, at heart, not really a change at all: your enemies will necessarily be getting similar boosts if the game is to remain fair. And since power is relative, you're back to square one again.

So you say that being as strong as an average guy and being able to lift his house are nothing? I wonder what sort of game you play in, because in mine it makes a massive difference - at the very least, in the character's mindset and how they are seen by others.


MOAR POWEH:
Whenever the players are confronted with a difficult challenge, their standard responce is to go out, level up, then try again using fundimentally the same method. Not to try a different strategy, or approach the problem from a different angle. On a related note, the usual way to make the villain "scary" is to have him start out at a much higher level than the PCs, which leads to a lot of PC deaths from premature confrontations... And also creates the illusion that no villain is ever invincible (causing more GM facepalms).

Since when? I've never experienced this - sounds like a group issue to me.

If XP/leveling isn't the right system for your group, it's not right for your group, true. But that doesn't mean everyone else has the same issues.


A master of all trades is a paragon of none:
Just as power level is relative, so is specialization. A character with a "high" rank in multiple skills is really just a very skilled generalist.

This goes hand in hand with, at least in some systems, characters reaching levels of power above mythic heroes.


Crippling Overspecialization:
Because the game has to remain challenging to all levels,

Says who? It doesn't always need to be 100% challenge, all the time. A great way to feel character empowerment over time is to go back and fight "tough" things or do "impossible" feats that are, by now, easy for you.


skill challanges also must scale with level. But this just means that a good specialist has all skills they don't actively specialize in become practically useless. New skill points (or the equivalent) must be spent constantly improving skills the character already has, if they are to remain relevant.

No. Taking Knowledge skills of all stripes as an example - I don't know of any system in which putting a few points/ranks/dots/potatoes in Knowledge of Whatever isn't better than not doing so. A bit of knowledge is a bit of knowledge, even if later on it's only "you know that this beast is said to breathe fire" rather than knowing how it works inside and out.


Meh, it's only a plus one sword:
Expecting to get plainly superior equipment later on devalues the equipment the PCs currently have. This is creates a conflict between the mechanics and roleplay: on the one hand, naming one's sword is very traditional and adds depth to the character; on the other, it's a horrible tactical decision to commit to using the same weapon 5-10 levels from now.

This only applies to some games, but...no. Some games (DnD 3.5, for example) have rules for enhancing already-magic weapons. Ancestral blade getting obsolete? No problem, smack some blessings and empowerments on that thing!

(Also, I'd argue that not naming a sword and treating it as merely a tool can be a great source of character depth in its own right.)


It's nothing I won't be able to do in a few levels:
Whenever there's advancement, it's the assumption that the players can reach any power level they want, given enough time. This makes it harder to make authoritative figures seem worthy of respect; and it's harder to make the game world seem bigger than just what the PCs do.

Says who? A lot of systems either have GM-adjucated advancement or are based on overcoming challenging things. If you hit the limit of power and can find nothing to challenge you, the gulf between you and the next strongest thing is far larger, as you can't cross it.

Not respecting NPCs because "I can get stronger" is also definitely a group issue. At least, it's not a thing I've ever seen.


Slay him and take his experience points:
Why wouldn't the players have a reason to kill every living creature they come across if they know they'll be rewarded (however minimally) for it?

Because they're playing a roleplaying game, not Ultrakillmegamurderspree VIII? Oh, and because there are realistic consequences to doing so. Unless you play in a world without them.


High score:
Encouraging "score keeping" can be either good or bad, depending on your players and the nature of the game. But either way, there are better ways to do this than XP; and the fact that it's as (or more) often a bad thing means it shouldn't be standard.

Wha...huh? I've never even heard of XP as "a high score" before.

(Sounds like a group issue.)


Quadratic Wizardry:
No level advancement means you don't ever have the problem of one class/build advancing faster than the other; and therefore it's much easier to balance them.

It also means your apprentice mage and young-but-bold farmhand-turned-swordsman will never get better. Ever. Kill a dozen bandits, track them to the evil noble plotting to gain control of the region and then fight off a demon summoned into the world? You are no better than before.

You say XP encourages "kill it all", but by the same logic no XP encourages "why even do anything? We won't get better from it".


Munchkinry:
If there isn't any way to gain power, then logically there isn't any way to gain obscene amounts of power. If overall power is generally kept the same, then the best one can do is specialize to a specific situation -which has its own drawbacks.[/SPOILER]

If there is no advancement, the same people will just go for ultra-strong early game builds which will never get weaker because, after all, "the game must stay fair" so enemies can't get stronger and neither do you. In other words, pick as much front-loaded stuff as possible to not be unhappy with being a random farmhand all your life!

[QUOTE]So, I fail to see where the attraction is. Level/power advancement creates a whole host of problems, and I fail to see anything truly productive in it that can't be done in other, better ways.

I disagree. Leveling does have some issues, but never getting stronger breaks immersion and doesn't solve anything, while also being less fun for a lot of people (including the people who might enjoy roleplaying someone who goes from a green trainee to an experienced fighter. Speaking of which, what's up with that? Do people just spawn in as fully-trained, fully-equipped warriors, or what? They can't get better by training, so they must have their skills from birth).

The issue seems to be with you trying to play with a system that does not suit your group, without being willing to bend the rules at all.

EDIT: Simon, the issue he has is not with levels, but getting stronger at all.

I'm all for starting as more than a random farmhand (I only have two characters I'd ever play at level 1), but the thought of never getting stronger, no matter what you go through, just doesn't fit into my view of how such a world works.

Slow advancement over sudden leveling is something I'd prefer, yes, but DnD's mechanics (BAB, for example) don't lend themselves to it - I can deal with the dissonance it causes, though.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 03:16 PM
As always, the game is itself a factor. 3.5 is a prime target, but others, not so much.
I guess that makes the answer a "no", then.

(And yes, I did notice everyone else who pointed this out earlier, I just didn't have a chance to respond.)



Example: in Mummy: the Curse, a character's power-stat goes down as play continues.
That sounds interesting. :smallbiggrin:



A universal answer can't be given.
Give me a specific one, then.


It can.
Again, I'd like to hear how.


It doesn't have to.
But it does all the same. :smallyuk:



First off, who's to say the game has to be fair in the first place?
Balanced, then. That narrow band between "too easy" and "too hard" which qualifies as "fun". (And yes, I know this varies from person to person. But it should stay roughly consistent within one system!)



Second, power isn't always equal to numbers.

Example: In Exalted, a Solar and a Dragon-Blooded might have similar combat skills and mystical puissance, but at the same XP total, the Solar is better off than the Dragon-Blooded. Not because of higher numbers (though that can be a factor), but because his powers let him do different, and often more effective, things. This is both not fair AND not based in numbers.
I didn't mean the numbers that were written down in the book for XP or anything. I meant the general concept of simply increasing the nominal power of abilities without fundamentally altering their utility.



…and those of us who tell those kinds of stories like it very much, thank you.
And you don't have to use the same system I do! :smalltongue:

Larkas
2013-05-16, 03:16 PM
Who said anything about level 1? You'd be stuck at 10, 15, 20; or whatever level you have the most fun at.

It seems to me that you seriously need to try giving E6 a go. Go ahead. It's a good game, and seems to circumvent most of the problems you have. You can also adapt it to whichever level you like to play at (i.e.: E3, E6, E10, etc.).

That is, if you come from a D&D background, as it seems you do. Regardless, I was going to suggest going freeform, but you already discarded that idea.

Morty
2013-05-16, 03:18 PM
I think you're applying the standards of 3.x D&D to the entire RPG industry. D&D is awful about it in the way you describe, but it hardly applies to every RPG out there, does it? There's plenty that have reasonable character advancement rate.

And besides, the reason you have some sort of character advancement in most RPGs is that... well, it makes sense. When people surmount challenges, go through trials and discover things about themselves and others they tend to learn new things and become better at others.

Scow2
2013-05-16, 03:28 PM
And another related issue is my dislike of the standard D&D (3.0 and after) setting, in which your character is specifically meant to be unimportant. You might think you have a cool wizard, but he's just a first level nobody in a city where there are literally (yes, "literally" not "figuratively) thousands of wizards more powerful than him. The only reason that he gets to go on an adventure is that the other wizards are too lazy to do it themselves. It's not like they couldn't. The highest level wizard in a city could handle *all* the adventures your character ever has all by himself if he felt like it. Your character isn't important to the story of this world. He could be replaced by any of the many other guys just like him (but better) in any given city. You don't get to be Gandalf, the one wizard that could possibly save the day. You're not even Harry Potter... you're Ron Weasely or Neville Longbottom. And who wants to be that?Just to nitpick - D&D doesn't actually support this viewpoint. Well, maybe about "Wizards more powerful than you" - but it's not hundreds. It's only a few dozen or so, and that's only in the largest of cities (Please look at the DMG's demographics section). They give you someone to look up to, tap as resources and contacts, treat as mentors, bail your ass out, etc, and eventually surpass. At low levels, you're not saving the world - you're getting in barfights, burning down taverns, stumbling across crime scenes, and doing other low-level stuff. Which can be more than fun in its own right.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-05-16, 03:36 PM
Here's my 2 cp: The first is that the character is, essentially, the player's window into the game world. In most games, everything you do in the world, you do acting through your character. The mechanics are the bones and muscle of the character: They're the fiddly abstractions through which the player interfaces with the world. If the world is the internet, and your DM is the screen, then your character sheet is the keyboard.

The second thing is that we want different characters to *feel* different in the ways that matter to this particular game. We expect a Fighter to feel like a Fighter when we play it, and we expect a Wizard to feel like a Wizard. When a character changes over the course of a story, these changes are enhanced by corresponding changes in the mechanics to adjust the feel of playing the character accordingly.

So I think character development is a useful tool, if properly used, both from a GMing perspective and a designer perspective.

Notice I said development, not advancement. The latter should be considered a subset of the former. The problem with advancement is that it's only appropriate for one type of character arc: A young peasant boy who picks up a sword and runs off to make his fortune and eventually ends up slaying the dragon and marrying the princess. It only simulates changes in a single direction.

That's fine when that's exactly what you want, but if you try to do something different it breaks.

So my advice is know when leveling/xp rules are hurting your game and remove them, but also know where development rules are appropriate and try to work them in this way.

SimonMoon6
2013-05-16, 03:38 PM
It also means your apprentice mage and young-but-bold farmhand-turned-swordsman will never get better. Ever. Kill a dozen bandits, track them to the evil noble plotting to gain control of the region and then fight off a demon summoned into the world? You are no better than before.

You say XP encourages "kill it all", but by the same logic no XP encourages "why even do anything? We won't get better from it".

Why would a GM want to encourage PCs to randomly kill stuff?

Surely, the reason that PCs take actions *ought* to be to save the day (if they are heroes). The heroes should be taking heroic actions because they are heroes. Virtue is its own reward and all that.

Heroes should kill bandits because (a) that's the right thing to do and (b) that's the adventure. Heroes should stop a demon from taking over the world for similarly obvious reasons. They shouldn't need a carrot.

Of course, that's for heroes. For greedy murder-hobos, well, you might throw in a cash reward or something. But characters should have motivations and motivations should motivate their actions. I don't recall ever reading a book or seeing a movie where the main character stopped and said, "Wait, I need to go kill some guys so I can become more powerful."









I disagree. Leveling does have some issues, but never getting stronger breaks immersion and doesn't solve anything, while also being less fun for a lot of people (including the people who might enjoy roleplaying someone who goes from a green trainee to an experienced fighter. Speaking of which, what's up with that? Do people just spawn in as fully-trained, fully-equipped warriors, or what? They can't get better by training, so they must have their skills from birth).

For the most part, in real life, people spend a lot of time learning their skills. And then they start their adult life, in which they *might* get marginally better over time at certain skills. But they generally don't become absurdly superheroic. I've never seen a 20th level policeman running through fire-fights without worrying about being shot (he's got 200 hp, so a few dozen bullets could never kill him).

Basically, people tend to have their "secret origin" during which they become who they are. And then that's that.

At best, people tend to lose their old skills so they can learn new ones. But I haven't yet seen a game system where that was the primary way to gain new abilities.

TheCountAlucard
2013-05-16, 03:43 PM
And yes, I did notice everyone else who pointed this out earlier, I just didn't have a chance to respond.I'm posting from a phone, so my own responses are pretty slow.


Give me a specific one, then.I've been editing my original post. Go ahead and check it.


Balanced, then. That narrow band between "too easy" and "too hard" which qualifies as "fun". (And yes, I know this varies from person to person. But it should stay roughly consistent within one system!)I've already given examples of systems that have vastly different power levels between characters, and are more fun for doing so.

ericgrau
2013-05-16, 03:44 PM
For roleplaying, nope, you don't need it at all. You can stay at the same level and be involved in all kinds of interesting plot. But then, for RP, you don't even need the entire system.

For building a character, it's everything there is.

Since most people play with a system I presume they want at least some amount of system. This requires a character build. And people will eventually get bored with the same one, if they care about the system at all. So leveling is absolutely necessary, or some kind of change. Even E6 gives feats. But those who emphasize RP more, without using their stats as much, may not need to level up as often.

Any argument against it is basically an argument against having any system at all. Wanting to play with no system is possible, but extremely unlikely.

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 03:46 PM
Why would a GM want to encourage PCs to randomly kill stuff?

I agree!


Surely, the reason that PCs take actions *ought* to be to save the day (if they are heroes). The heroes should be taking heroic actions because they are heroes. Virtue is its own reward and all that.

I disagree!

To me, D&D is fundamentally about adventurers, not about heroes. (Damn you, Weis & Hickman!) They go in search of lost legends and treasures and fame.

2E and 3.X started to wreck this, badly. Suddenly, killing things (or story awards, which are explicitly not meant to even make a dent next to killing things) was the main source of XP, instead if treasure.

It's why I use XP-for-treasure rules. It encourages players to be Conan, Fafhrd, the Gray Mouser; to rove and reave, to avoid combat when necessary, to sneak an steal, to be clever and cunning, to bribe and negotiate and even run away.

Combat should be dangerous business, unless the PCs are seriously outclassing their opponents (in which case rewards are rarely as great, or commeasurate to the PCs' needs), so other that approaches are more attractive.

Honestly, the one message really coming across from this thread is "3.X had serious problems, seeing the way many people ended up running it." I'm not saying they're unavoidable, but they certainly seem to be prevalent. I'm also not saying it's 3.X's fault - I think 3.X was just the culmination of bad playstyles that began in AD&D 2E, and had been embraced by the people who wrote 3E.

Jerthanis
2013-05-16, 03:46 PM
Give me a specific one, then.


Well, okay. One example is the quintessential Ravenloft adventure, in which you must stop the vampire Strahd Von Zarovich. To begin with, you would die in a confrontation with Strahd without even harming him. As you adventure throughout Bavaria, you accumulate lost relics of power, learn about Strahd and his magics and his motivations, sever his allies from him, and in general become a much greater group of vampire hunters than you started with. This allows you to be scared of the villain and necessitate caution at the one point, but allow you to triumph at a different point. In a game like D&D, where you resolve things with numbers, increasing your numbers is going to be a key to changing from one state to the other. Otherwise, you might kill Strahd at the beginning without learning anything about the situation and without going from the one state (fear) to the other (triumph), just because your numbers are already good enough.

You seem to be afraid of characters winding up demigods from starting at level 1, but as an example of what that looks like, look at Planescape Torment. You begin that game shivving berks for a pile of trash, and you end the game talking with the manifestation of spoiler in a castle-plane made entirely of your own melancholy. You seem to be demigodlike mostly because of what is demanded of you, and you earn the right to be called that because of your actions. It isn't a matter of being demigodlike just cuz', you're demigodlike because of the stakes and reality of the story. If you're not telling a story with the background of something like Planescape Torment, then you should simply end the game at level 6, not progress further, play with a different system or otherwise.

Essentially, advancement is at tool.

Jay R
2013-05-16, 03:48 PM
Are you seriously questioning why we think people get more skilled through experience?

Role-playing games are based on simulating human behavior.

Fighters who fight more get better at fighting.

People with professional skills get better at those skills.

Graduate students know more about academic subjects than freshmen.

Musicians, athletes, actors, and most other people judged directly on their skills practice to continue improving.

I'm a better player and a better DM than when I started playing.

It's equally true in literature.

The hobbits could never have scoured the shire without the improved character and abilities from their trek.
Harry Potter learns magical spells and abilities through seven books.
Iron Man gets more and more abilities as Tony Stark improves the armor.
Green Lantern gets better with the Power Ring through training and experience.
D'Artagnan starts out politically naive, and eventually is outsmarting the most politically astute person in Europe.


In any human endeavor, simulation of that endeavor over time should include improvement.

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 03:50 PM
The hobbits could never have scoured the shire without the improved character and abilities from their trek.


Merry and Pippin are freakin' cheatin' munchkins, though! Ent-draught my butt...

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 03:51 PM
It sounds like a group problem, not a system issue, to me.
I'm speaking more in general terms; it may or may not actually be as much of a problem as I think it is.


So you say that being as strong as an average guy and being able to lift his house are nothing? I wonder what sort of game you play in, because in mine it makes a massive difference - at the very least, in the character's mindset and how they are seen by others.
The difference is that in the former case you'd be fighting other roughly average guys, and in the latter you'd be fighting other superhumans. And I meant there's no difference mechanically, RP is a different issue.


Since when? I've never experienced this - sounds like a group issue to me.
Neither have I, but I've seen stories here on the forum and am attributing level advancement as a contributing factor to them.



Says who? It doesn't always need to be 100% challenge, all the time. A great way to feel character empowerment over time is to go back and fight "tough" things or do "impossible" feats that are, by now, easy for you.
Says I: one who plays for a challenge and gets little pleasure from beating one merely because it was made easier.

Others will disagree, of course; but we don't all have to play the same system. I'm just looking for one I would like.



This only applies to some games, but...no. Some games (DnD 3.5, for example) have rules for enhancing already-magic weapons. Ancestral blade getting obsolete? No problem, smack some blessings and empowerments on that thing!
But it would still be an easier choice to make if equipment didn't have to be upgraded at all. (Why does it need to be upgraded, anyways?)



Says who? A lot of systems either have GM-adjucated advancement or are based on overcoming challenging things. If you hit the limit of power and can find nothing to challenge you, the gulf between you and the next strongest thing is far larger, as you can't cross it.
And that is where the "fun" ends, for both me and the player who just likes advancement. GM-adjudicated advancement could be a solution; it's assumed and expected leveling that I don't like.



Oh, and because there are realistic consequences to doing so. Unless you play in a world without them.
And yet, how often they forget... :smallsigh:



It also means your apprentice mage and young-but-bold farmhand-turned-swordsman will never get better. Ever. Kill a dozen bandits, track them to the evil noble plotting to gain control of the region and then fight off a demon summoned into the world? You are no better than before.
That's the specific exception where advancement is needed for story reasons. If you start out as a competent/powerful character there's no reason you have to be more powerful by the end of the story. In fact, most stories I can think of go like this: Odyssius was a great warrior even before he left troy, for instance.

Besides, if you manage to do all that without ever advancing in power, you were already powerful to start with. It's just that you didn't know you were/it was hidden within you. :smalltongue:



You say XP encourages "kill it all", but by the same logic no XP encourages "why even do anything? We won't get better from it".
"Because X needs us!"


If there is no advancement, the same people will just go for ultra-strong early game builds which will never get weaker because, after all, "the game must stay fair" so enemies can't get stronger and neither do you. In other words, pick as much front-loaded stuff as possible to not be unhappy with being a random farmhand all your life!
Exactly how will this work? :smallconfused:

If things are balanced then all your options will have roughly the same benefit overall. So, if you're strong against some builds you're also weak against others.

And your enemies won't be homogenous. In fact, they will probably be tailored specifically to be challenging for your build. :smalltongue:



I disagree. Leveling does have some issues, but never getting stronger breaks immersion and doesn't solve anything, while also being less fun for a lot of people (including the people who might enjoy roleplaying someone who goes from a green trainee to an experienced fighter.
I'll give you that for people who find it fun, for whatever reasons, it's fun; but I don't understand how it breaks immersion. :smallconfused:

Nobody said you aren't getting better, just not better enough that it needs to be modeled in-game.


Speaking of which, what's up with that? Do people just spawn in as fully-trained, fully-equipped warriors, or what? They can't get better by training, so they must have their skills from birth).
The system does not model life. It's a game designed to follow a story.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 03:53 PM
Are you seriously questioning why we think people get more skilled through experience?

No. I'm questioning why this needs to be a part of the game.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 03:57 PM
No. I'm questioning why this needs to be a part of the game.

Because most RPG's are intended to be able to tell games lasting long enough that learning through experience becomes a factor.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 03:59 PM
Because most RPG's are intended to be able to tell games lasting long enough that learning through experience becomes a factor.

But is it really necessary as part of the core rules?

Not just a supplement for running extended campaigns?


(Alternatively, does an RPG have to be designed to run that long? Most books wouldn't qualify.)

Rosstin
2013-05-16, 04:00 PM
I agree, in large part. From a story perspective it makes more sense for characters to gain power in more appropriate ways. When I run one-shots, I often completely throw out a leveling system.

However, we're talking about nerds here. Almost everyone I know who plays a roleplaying game starts by focusing on their character stats, progression, and abilities. It's what draws them into the game, and makes a poorly DMed game with people you don't like still sort-of-palatable. I'm not saying this is the way it SHOULD be, but it's the way it is.

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 04:01 PM
Because most RPG's are intended to be able to tell games lasting long enough that learning through experience becomes a factor.

Indeed, most of the original D&D campaigns went on for decades of real time, and decades or more of in-world time.

Then again, I've read a pretty convincing argument on Grognardia for the relative lack of advancement in Traveller making sense. But these are very different systems, in different genres, trying to achieve different results.

Why would this be a supplement, anyway? Separating the rules makes them less intuitive, less integrated, and doesn't make any sense when the default assumption is an ongoing campaign.

Deadline
2013-05-16, 04:01 PM
You might like the old Alternity system. It was basically D&D 2.75 (don't let the sci-fi skin fool you). It was 3.0, but was a skill based system rather than a level based one. Advancement felt more "realistic", as you picked the skills that you wanted to improve in, and you could only improve a certain amount each time.

You may also want to look at Pendragon. Another skill based system centered around the Arthurian legend. Your knight would go adventuring during the spring/summer and earn glory by doing the things knights do. Anytime you got a critical in a skill, you put a check next to it. When the Winter phase rolled around, your knight spent the cold months reflecting on the past year, and you could spend glory to increase a handful of skills by a point each. If you had any skills with a check mark, you got to roll to see if those increased by a point for free.

Granted, you mentioned that advancement through system isn't your preference, but they are examples of systems that take a different approach that you might like.

PersonMan
2013-05-16, 04:03 PM
Why would a GM want to encourage PCs to randomly kill stuff?

Beats me. I wasn't the one who claimed that XP leads to players randomly killing things, only making the connection that, if all they want is XP, then taking it away doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the symptoms.



For the most part, in real life,

This is, of course, a playstyle thing, but generally in games one does a lot of things that don't work in real life. In real life, one is limited by, well, reality - the body can only do so much, can only endure so much. It's not necessarily so limited in a game. Gritty realistic games, of course, will stick to this more than high-powered demigod ones.

My point is, "it works like this in real life" isn't always applicable when some groups throw a lot of real life out the window in their games.

Additionally, stories often take place during the character's "secret origin", when they explore their full potential and become the best they can be. A lot of such stories end with the character having a peaceful life, or similar, but not increasing in personal power.

I'd also argue that there's a big difference between work life, or even military life, and standard heroic adventurer life, where one is constantly pushed to their limit in new, dangerous situations.

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 04:04 PM
Geordnet, maybe you should start a thread asking people to describe to you how mechanical development works in different games/systems? (Fat chance of changing the direction of this thread! :smallbiggrin: )

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 04:04 PM
I'm not saying this is the way it SHOULD be, but it's the way it is.

That's sort of the reason why I posted this, and why I'm not surprised at how fast the thread has grown.

It's an assumption that's so ingrained to the collective psyche that it doesn't even matter if it's right: the difficult questions need to be asked and answered.

illyrus
2013-05-16, 04:06 PM
But is it really necessary as part of the core rules?

Not just a supplement for running extended campaigns?

Its not necessary in the same way that combat and magic are not necessary. You can have a game without any of those 3 and there have already been some game systems mentioned that don't have advancement and even more with absolutely minimal advancement.

I personally don't see any reason where you have to use D&D or any single system in a day and age where you have hundreds of RPGs out there, some likely more fitting for what you want.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 04:08 PM
But is it really necessary as part of the core rules?

Not just a supplement for running extended campaigns?

Yes, because it otherwise seems like money gouging. Imagine taking all the level dependent stuff out of D&D and calling it the core book. You'd have next to nothing left.


(Alternatively, does an RPG have to be designed to run that long? Most books wouldn't qualify.)

What books have you been reading? Most of those with relevance to RPG's are long. :smallconfused:

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 04:10 PM
It's an assumption that's so ingrained to the collective psyche that it doesn't even matter if it's right: the difficult questions need to be asked and answered.

:smallcool: Cool. My questions next?

And really, since you're talking pretty exclusively about 3.X/4E style XP/leveling, no, it is not "ingrained to (sic) the collective psyche." Seriously, very few RPGs have character levels like D&D does.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 04:11 PM
Why would this be a supplement, anyway? Separating the rules makes them less intuitive, less integrated, and doesn't make any sense when the default assumption is an ongoing campaign.

Because why should an ongoing campaign be the default assumption?

Think about it. Do you really know the answer? If you say it's because most players play ongoing campaigns, is that for any reason other than because it's the default assumption? :smallconfused:



You may also want to look at Pendragon. Another skill based system centered around the Arthurian legend. Your knight would go adventuring during the spring/summer and earn glory by doing the things knights do. Anytime you got a critical in a skill, you put a check next to it. When the Winter phase rolled around, your knight spent the cold months reflecting on the past year, and you could spend glory to increase a handful of skills by a point each. If you had any skills with a check mark, you got to roll to see if those increased by a point for free.

The more I hear about Pendragon, the more I need to get my hands on it. :smallbiggrin:



Geordnet, maybe you should start a thread asking people to describe to you how mechanical development works in different games/systems? (Fat chance of changing the direction of this thread! :smallbiggrin: )

If anyone wants to post an analysis of various methods of advancement here, I'd read it. :smalltongue:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 04:13 PM
Because why should an ongoing campaign be the default assumption?

Because social-based activities tend to be ongoing? Because creating a new character, with a new backstory, from scratch every time seems odd? Because RPG's take real life time?

You argued for non-level based advancement due to gaining benefits from roleplaying.

Now you're basically saying 'why don't we assume restarting every time'.

Because a sense of achievement is preferred to having to go back to square one all the time and it enables you to do more roleplaying and less character creation?

Eldan
2013-05-16, 04:15 PM
Ongoing campaign? I think for me, because developing a character is the interesting part when I'm a player. And that's not going to happen in one adventure. I usually need a session or two just to get a handle on the character I've written myself, even before he starts changing.

PersonMan
2013-05-16, 04:16 PM
But it would still be an easier choice to make if equipment didn't have to be upgraded at all. (Why does it need to be upgraded, anyways?)

I agree with you here, but isn't it also "traditional" that X-Monster can only be killed by Y-Weapon (which is presumably magic/might as well be)?



And that is where the "fun" ends, for both me and the player who just likes advancement. GM-adjudicated advancement could be a solution; it's assumed and expected leveling that I don't like.

I don't get it. You dislike games that expect you to advance, but stop having fun when advancement ends?


"Because X needs us!"

This paints an entirely different picture than "The PCs kill everything they see for XP". People who do the first would probably not do things for in-game reasons like that.



Exactly how will this work? :smallconfused:

If things are balanced then all your options will have roughly the same benefit overall. So, if you're strong against some builds you're also weak against others.

This and the linear/quadratic problem don't mix. Are the options balanced or are they not? If they are balanced, then I stipulate that they stay balanced at all levels. If they are unbalanced, they'll be just as unbalanced at level X as at level X+1.


Nobody said you aren't getting better, just not better enough that it needs to be modeled in-game.

What's the difference between "just better enough to be better" and "better enough for an in-game benefit", apart from the fact that one is arbitrarily decided and the other uses the rules framework?

If people get better at all, they will be driven to hoard and amass XP, according to your earlier points. How does "only a little" change that?


The system does not model life. It's a game designed to follow a story.

"Why can they train and get better, but we can't? What's stopping us from doing the same things they do?"

Strict PC/NPC and story/gameplay divides generally lead to issues. See: every system/game ever where people being one-shot outside of combat occurs for "plot reasons" and the players get annoyed because they can't just heal/resurrect the person.

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 04:18 PM
Because why should an ongoing campaign be the default assumption?

Think about it. Do you really know the answer? If you say it's because most players play ongoing campaigns, is that for any reason other than because it's the default assumption? :smallconfused:

Haw.

Here's four:

1. Because many people like to develop entire worlds in their heads. Some of them become authors, many become GMs.
2. Because ongoing campaigns allow the players to affect the world, and even years later, point at some part of it and tell a story about it.
3. Because most of the "source material" (fantasy fiction) is "ongoing campaigns" (Conan, Chronicles of Prydain, Elric, Hawkmoon, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, The Black Company, Tarzan, Barsoom, Pellucidar, Amber, etc. etc.).
4. Because people like long stories that go on and develop. (See above, and TV shows, etc.)

For me, it's mostly 1. & 2. I like to create and run a world. I like to see my players' characters become an integral part of it, and this invests my players in the world and makes it our creation, not mine.

There are games written for one-shots, but they are not the standard, because most people like longer campaigns. Plus it's much less complicated to write a game that accommodates campaigns by default then run one-offs with that than the other way around. I mean, if you're talking about one-offs, advancement usually doesn't even enter into it.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 04:22 PM
Yes, because it otherwise seems like money gouging. Imagine taking all the level dependent stuff out of D&D and calling it the core book. You'd have next to nothing left.
Fine, then just put it in a separate part of the book labelled "Optional".

Or make it a free downloadable PDF. :smalltongue:

(Also, no advancement doesn't preclude multiple levels. You just pick the one level you're at for the entire game.)



What books have you been reading? Most of those with relevance to RPG's are long. :smallconfused:

Exactly. You didn't see Aragorn gain a level, did you? And Odysseus could conceivably be modeled with the same basic stat block throughout the entire Odyssey, could he not? :smallwink:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 04:26 PM
Exactly. You didn't see Aragorn gain a level, did you? And Odysseus could conceivably be modeled with the same basic stat block throughout the entire Odyssey, could he not? :smallwink:

How about the hobbits, though? You know, the people that started off as level 1 commoners, rather than the guy who's going to take a lot to level up?

I have never heard of the Odyssey as a basis for an RPG, it's not exactly the right sort of thing. How about Perseus?

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 04:27 PM
Exactly. You didn't see Aragorn gain a level, did you? And Odysseus could conceivably be modeled with the same basic stat block throughout the entire Odyssey, could he not? :smallwink:

Yet Conan the King (The Hour of the Dragon) and Conan the Thief (The Tower of the Elephant) are obviously of wildly different ability. Fafhrd and Gray Mouser grow greatly from where they start. Taran of Caer Dallben grows from apprentice pig-keeper to High King.

Examples and counter-examples. What do you think these are worth, really?

And you're still talking about leveling only!

Scow2
2013-05-16, 04:33 PM
I've never had advancement become an issue in any of my games - even in 3.5, the shift from Peon to Demigod is a gradual and granular one. Yes, each level-up is a boost in power - but usually a small one, giving me a few new tools to play around with. Mechanically, I'm not significantly more powerful at level 7 than I was at level 6 to any notable degree. I might get a new tool or two to play around with. And I fight hard for any and all new wealth and equipment I have.

In D&D, you stay long enough at a level to enjoy and be forced to adapt yourself to your abilities at that level, but still crave the next one - which comes soon enough that you don't start feeling stale.

LibraryOgre
2013-05-16, 04:36 PM
Not just XP, but gaining new skills, getting better gear, and becoming more powerful in general.

Level progression of some sort seems to be taken for granted in RPGs in general, but what does it actually add to the game? It doesn't matter within a specific encounter, encourages metagaming and solving every problem with blunt force, and is only necessary in a small fraction of stories. Here's just some of the fallacies I see:



I disagree with this basic premise. It only encourages metagaming and solving problems with blunt force if the only way to get XP is blunt force. If XP is available for more than killing, then people will do things that get them XP.

For example, let's say you're playing Shadowrun. You CAN go in guns-a-blazing and succeed, given a large enough number of guns (HELL-oooo, rigger). However, there are consequences to that action, including the fact that people with even more guns will come to your house and trash you.

However, you can frequently accomplish the mission with fewer casualties, which also has the bonus of reducing your profile AND, sometimes, gaining a bonus.

Shadowrun, despite its flaws, also has another perk... caps. You cannot get above X in a skill, no matter how many points you toss at it. You can only get so good, meaning improvements come in the form broadened skills. You reach a theoretical maximum... eventually, that immortal elf is going to master every skill and every stat... but usually not for long enough not to matter.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 04:37 PM
1. Because many people like to develop entire worlds in their heads. Some of them become authors, many become GMs.
Nothing's stopping you from doing so just because, then hosting a one-shot in it.


2. Because ongoing campaigns allow the players to affect the world, and even years later, point at some part of it and tell a story about it.
So does a series of one-shots in the same setting.


3. Because most of the "source material" (fantasy fiction) is "ongoing campaigns" (Conan, Chronicles of Prydain, Elric, Hawkmoon, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, The Black Company, Tarzan, Barsoom, Pellucidar, Amber, etc. etc.).
Really? Granted, I don't know half of them, but Frodo had less than half a dozen encounters, each book of Narnia was a stand-alone adventure, and Barsoom was mostly a string of one-shots (that admittedly suffered the Elminster John Carter Effect).


4. Because people like long stories that go on and develop. (See above, and TV shows, etc.)
People like short stories which they can watch in a single sitting, too. How can you know which one should be the default?


There are games written for one-shots, but they are not the standard, because most people like longer campaigns.
[citation needed (http://xkcd.com/285/)]


Plus it's much less complicated to write a game that accommodates campaigns by default then run one-offs with that than the other way around.
Really? That would seem more complicated to me; and more prone to imbalances in one-shots.


I mean, if you're talking about one-offs, advancement usually doesn't even enter into it.
Right; this is just a tangential thing where I'm trying to make a point about challenging assumptions. :smalltongue:

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 04:41 PM
Nothing's stopping you from doing so just because, then hosting a one-shot in it.

So does a series of one-shots in the same setting.

These are nonsense responses. Why would I do that?

Scow2
2013-05-16, 04:44 PM
Also... I see you arguing that they shouldn't be part of the core rules.

In D&D/etc, you can remove the 'advancement' mechanic if you want, and use those rules and tables for higher levels to determine the level of the game you want to run: A low-powered, scary, and highly-lethal dungeon crawl? Play at levels 1-3 in D&D. Want something more heroic? Start at level 6. Highly-accomplished legends? Level 11. Epic characters rivalling the gods? Level 15-21.

Not leveling up isn't an issue in most one-shot adventures, where you rarely if ever gain enough XP to go up one level, if not two.


Also - a lot of D&D campaigns go on for years if not decades in the real world.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 04:45 PM
How about the hobbits, though? You know, the people that started off as level 1 commoners, rather than the guy who's going to take a lot to level up?
Aristocrats, actually; only Sam would've been a commoner. :smalltongue:

And I'd say that they might each have gained a level in warrior, except perhaps for Frodo. (Who was just lucky to get out alive.)

I'll admit that Bilbo probably gained a level in Rouge.



I have never heard of the Odyssey as a basis for an RPG, it's not exactly the right sort of thing. How about Perseus?

Why not? He's got an overarching goal, a "home ship base"; encounters are even easily separable by island! It sounds to me like the perfect way to run a campaign. :smallbiggrin:

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 04:47 PM
These are nonsense responses. Why would I do that?

The better question is why not? :smallbiggrin:


If you like to build worlds, then you shouldn't need a reason to do so. Hosting One-shots in it will let it get seen as well as campaigns -in fact, probably better than campaigns since you can be in a different part of the world each time. And if the one-shots are serial then you can see the effects of previous adventures in later ones.

What more do you need than that? :smalltongue:

DeusMortuusEst
2013-05-16, 04:49 PM
To me most of the issues in the OP sound like group problems, rather than a system problem.

If you don't want advancement in your game, you can still use 3.5. Just don't level up. That's it. End of story.

RP your improvements, perhaps give out a new special ability after the end of a long adventure if you play a campaign or retire the character if you play a one-shot.

illyrus
2013-05-16, 04:49 PM
Geordnet, what RPGs have to played past ones in the d20 family?

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 04:52 PM
If you don't want advancement in your game, you can still use 3.5. Just don't level up. That's it. End of story.

Yeah, basically. I never said it was a hard problem to fix. :smallbiggrin:



Geordnet, what RPGs have to played past ones in the d20 family?

None, really. I'm much more of a wargamer than a roleplayer.


In fact, I'm not even having this problem; I just wanted to ask a difficult question. :smallamused:

Scow2
2013-05-16, 04:54 PM
The better question is why not? :smallbiggrin:


If you like to build worlds, then you shouldn't need a reason to do so. Hosting One-shots in it will let it get seen as well as campaigns -in fact, probably better than campaigns since you can be in a different part of the world each time. And if the one-shots are serial then you can see the effects of previous adventures in later ones.

What more do you need than that? :smalltongue:

Because players get attached to their characters. They don't usually care about the world to any extent more than it affect their characters, which are their eyes, ears, and hands in that world. If they want to go see somewhere else in the world, they will pick up their beloved, hand-crafted avatars and take them there, instead of roll up a new set that they haven't got to know yet.

illyrus
2013-05-16, 05:01 PM
None, really. I'm much more of a wargamer than a roleplayer.


In fact, I'm not even having this problem; I just wanted to ask a difficult question. :smallamused:

Its not really a difficult question, it is more like someone complaining that pizza is a terrible food while standing in a Pizza Hut when there are plenty of other restaurants that don't serve pizza on the same street.

Some people want pizza so they get a pizza, some people don't and get something else.

tonberrian
2013-05-16, 05:16 PM
In most RPG systems, creating a character is an involved process, running from a half hour to several. Why should I do this every time I play with my friends?

Doing so is certainly not for everyone, much as not doing so is. Why should having no advancement be the default rather than the option for all systems? What purpose does that serve?

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 05:16 PM
Because players get attached to their characters. They don't usually care about the world to any extent more than it affect their characters, which are their eyes, ears, and hands in that world. If they want to go see somewhere else in the world, they will pick up their beloved, hand-crafted avatars and take them there, instead of roll up a new set that they haven't got to know yet.

Well, the serial method actually has advantages in this department as well:

The players get to see their characters retire much more often than they see them die.
The new PCs can hear songs about the old PCs' deeds, see statues of them or maybe even get to meet them in person.
It's easier to get the players to care that a town is now (or soon will be) a smoking crater if that's where their old PCs retired.
Shorter exposure times means backstories don't need to be as detailed, or their personalities as "unique".
It helps to keep the players from getting too attatched to their characters.
New PC backstories can build off of what old PCs did; perhaps even being relatives.



Hm, that last one gives me an idea for a "succession game":

Start it off in the paleolithic era. Have the PCs do something special that will shape the entire world. As the first adventure. The next one uses their descendants, again doing something important. Continue this on for several "generations", marginally advancing the tech level each time, building the entire world around what the PCs did.

See how far you can go. :smallbiggrin:

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 05:18 PM
Its not really a difficult question, it is more like someone complaining that pizza is a terrible food while standing in a Pizza Hut when there are plenty of other restaurants that don't serve pizza on the same street.

Some people want pizza so they get a pizza, some people don't and get something else.
I think a better analogy would asking why nobody ever serves pizza without cheese.

If I wanted pizza sans cheese, where would I go? :smallconfused:

Kingreaper
2013-05-16, 05:24 PM
I think a better analogy would asking why nobody ever serves pizza without cheese.

If I wanted pizza sans cheese, where would I go? :smallconfused:
A pizza place. Ask for a pizza without cheese.

Done.

I know this because I've done it repeatedly (I have a vegan, pizza-loving, friend).


And you can easily ignore the levelling rules, and start at higher levels. But you want to remove them for everyone else. You want to remove cheese from the whole pizza place because you can't be bothered to say "no cheese"

Scow2
2013-05-16, 05:25 PM
I think a better analogy would asking why nobody ever serves pizza without cheese.

If I wanted pizza sans cheese, where would I go? :smallconfused:

You order it without the cheese... but odds are, it wouldn't be able to cook right, or something like that, because pizza needs cheese for structural integrity and the cooking process. Most system's 'advancement' amounts to a small paragraph or chart indicating what's available at the level you want to play the game.

A game that's designed with only one playstyle and level, instead of the option to play at different levels, probably wouldn't do very well because it requires One True Way to play.

Kingreaper
2013-05-16, 05:26 PM
You order it without the cheese... but odds are, it wouldn't be able to cook right, or something like that, because pizza needs cheese for structural integrity and the cooking process.

Deep Pan pizzas cook fine without cheese, however it does mean that the toppings are more likely to fall off while you're eating, because the cheese functions to hold them on.

Scow2
2013-05-16, 05:27 PM
Deep Pan pizzas cook fine without cheese, however it does mean that the toppings are more likely to fall off while you're eating, because the cheese functions to hold them on.

As I said - Structural integrity.

illyrus
2013-05-16, 05:30 PM
I think a better analogy would asking why nobody ever serves pizza without cheese.

If I wanted pizza sans cheese, where would I go? :smallconfused:

People have already mentioned systems that don't have advancement or have minimal advancement.

Here is another one, Nova Praxis. It has a tiny bit of advancement with major milestones that give you another stunt once every 6 sessions. Minor milestones let you switch some stuff around but give you nothing new. Change all major to minor and now you still have dynamic characters but they do not grow in personal power, ever. I think this is even one of the variants offered.

tonberrian
2013-05-16, 05:36 PM
Well, the serial method actually has advantages in this department as well:

The players get to see their characters retire much more often than they see them die.
The new PCs can hear songs about the old PCs' deeds, see statues of them or maybe even get to meet them in person.
It's easier to get the players to care that a town is now (or soon will be) a smoking crater if that's where their old PCs retired.
Shorter exposure times means backstories don't need to be as detailed, or their personalities as "unique".
It helps to keep the players from getting too attatched to their characters.
New PC backstories can build off of what old PCs did; perhaps even being relatives.


Can I point out that this is taking what I consider the heart and soul of an RPG out of the game? What's wrong with getting attached to a character? Why shouldn't I strive for unique personalities among my characters?

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 05:42 PM
Well, the serial method actually has advantages in this department as well:

The players get to see their characters retire much more often than they see them die.
The new PCs can hear songs about the old PCs' deeds, see statues of them or maybe even get to meet them in person.
It's easier to get the players to care that a town is now (or soon will be) a smoking crater if that's where their old PCs retired.
Shorter exposure times means backstories don't need to be as detailed, or their personalities as "unique".
It helps to keep the players from getting too attatched to their characters.
New PC backstories can build off of what old PCs did; perhaps even being relatives.


So... I have to keep changing PC's because you think it's bad if I do the things I like doing? I like making backstories, and I like having unique characters, and by the time I'm finished making them I'm already attached. :smallannoyed:

Verte
2013-05-16, 05:43 PM
One game that I think would provide good food for thought is Spirit of the Century (http://www.evilhat.com/home/spirit-of-the-century-2/), which uses the Fate system (http://www.faterpg.com/). First of all, it is explicitly stated that the game is intended to be easy to run pick-up games with, so it is geared more towards short adventures instead of campaigns. However, it does have rules and guidelines for longer term campaigns and for character advancement (with the caveat that "in SotC, any amount of advancement should be considered major") which advise against improving skills (which include things like Athletics, Intimidation, and Guns) and for improving upon Aspects and Stunts. Aspects are basically what make each character unique. A character could have say, "Always has the last word" or "My Revolver Roberta" as aspects, which then could have positive or negative uses. For instance, compelling the first aspect could mean that the character ends up offending someone important - thus earning Fate Points - which he could later use by invoking the second aspect, thus gaining a bonus or a reroll when he uses his Gun skill. Anyway, later on, when the party advances, he could add on an aspect that either ties into his other aspects, alter a preexisting aspect, or ties into the plot or his backstory in some way. Stunts are specific things a character can do with skills; for example, someone with the Guns skill could have One Shot Left, which means by declaring a shot as his very last of the scene, he gains a sizable bonus to his attack. Stunts are gained at half the rate of aspects, which means new ones won't be added on often at all. Also, it advises giving each player the option to swap out certain aspects, lower-rung skills, or rarely-used stunts, at the end of each session.

Anyway, the reasons I bring SotC up are 1. because it is more geared towards one-offs or episodic campaigns, 2. character improvement itself is supposed to be based around ingame events or the characters' personal growth, 3. because it uses Fate, which has been effectively used in non-pulp settings, such as the Dresden Files rpg, 4. because it disproves the notion that a game with little character advancement forces the players to play relative weaklings in a harsh, gritty world and 5. because the rules are available in a SRD for free (http://www.faterpg.com/dl/sotc-srd.html), so it is very easy to at least look over.

Grinner
2013-05-16, 05:44 PM
Why is this even a discussion?

There's tons of games and hacks thereof matching all variety of designs. A game without advancement? Easy. Wushu (http://danielbayn.com/wushu/freebies.html). Want something more complex? GURPS, but don't give experience points, or just require player characters to retrain one attribute or skill into the desired one.

Sylthia
2013-05-16, 05:50 PM
Aristocrats, actually; only Sam would've been a commoner. :smalltongue:

And I'd say that they might each have gained a level in warrior, except perhaps for Frodo. (Who was just lucky to get out alive.)

I'll admit that Bilbo probably gained a level in Rouge.:

The could have been aristocrats, but the Shire doesn't really have much of an aristocracy, it's more of an idealized version of rural Britain.

I'd say all the hobbits gained several levels, even Frodo, it just might have been counteracted by the curse of the Ring really dragging him down.

Merry and Pippin both got a few levels in Fighter, from getting training from Boromir and they both served Rohan and Gondor respectively. They even got some ability score bonuses from drinking the Ent draught.

Sam got tons of XP from dragging Frodo down to Mordor and killing Shelob.

Waar
2013-05-16, 05:51 PM
Not just XP, but gaining new skills, getting better gear, and becoming more powerful in general.


So, I fail to see where the attraction is. Level/power advancement creates a whole host of problems, and I fail to see anything truly productive in it that can't be done in other, better ways.

In a campagin i played in some time ago i created a character who at creation just could not fight, sure he could sneak,think and persuade people just fine but not fighting. Significant in- and out of game time later he is an accomplished swordsman. without advancment/self improvement this would not have happend. Do however note that this does not mean he "magically" got twice as resistant to say arrows.

So, i fail to see where the problem is. The ability to imporve your character has several advantages(imporevment is fun :smallwink:) and i fail to see how it could be better to not include this option. :smalltongue:

TheThan
2013-05-16, 05:58 PM
Ok let me explain what a level system is for:
A level system is an easy way for Dms and players to determine the overall power of an adventurer. The Dm knows that a CR 4 monster is an appropriate challenge for party of level 4 adventurers. He doesn’t have to do a whole lot of guess work in determining whether any given encounter is too much for the heroes to take on. Additionally, he has a host of premade creatures at his disposal that he can easily draw upon and drop them into his adventure. They all have a CR level telling the Dm how powerful they are.

With this system, the DM can easily and quickly scale his encounters up and down to suite his needs and the general power level of the adventuring party. Without this system, a Dm must spend MUCH more time building encounters, it’s totally doable (and many people prefer doing it that way), but with a level system, it becomes much faster and easier, especially for a new DM.

Experience:
Experience points represent just that, experience. As people get older they learn new things and develop new skills.

For instance I started painting miniatures about 5 years ago, as time has gone by, I’ve become much better at painting miniatures, I’ve gain more experience in that specific skill and in dnd terms, I’ve got a larger bonus then when I started. If I was not capable of getting better at a given skill, then there would be no reason for me to try to get better at that given skill.

Experience points also represent life experience, I know a whole lot more about the world today than I did fifteen years ago. As I’ve grown older, I’ve learned a lot more about the world around me, about people and places and things, I’ve acquired (and developed) new skills, and improved old ones. I’ve grown stronger, healthier and better than I was when I was younger. In essence I’ve leveled up.

Salbazier
2013-05-16, 06:00 PM
Why are you complaining that people made RPGs with expectation of longer campaign? If you don't want to deal with advancement then ignore the advancement rule. Fix a level or XP rate then stay there for whole session/campaign. Period.

You keep asking why they didn't made rules on the default assumption that people are going to play one shot and made advancement rules optional. Pardon, but this seem really silly to me.

If a game was made with the assumption of no advancement needed, then it is going to major undertaking to make advancement rules for it. If the developers are going to do all of that work, may as well publish that as part of the core. If they are going do that, why on earth they should made it optional? At the very least, it requires at least adding several more words of 'Optional' on the paper. waste of ink space. Quite likely, it going to reduce the focus on the advancement rules which means it is going to be under-developed. Bad rules, in another word.

On the other hand, making rules for one-shot/no advacement game in case users want to do such game? It only need one rule change. Don't give out XP. The devs don't even need to write it on the book! Everyone can come up with it.


A pizza place. Ask for a pizza without cheese.

Done.

I know this because I've done it repeatedly (I have a vegan, pizza-loving, friend).


And you can easily ignore the levelling rules, and start at higher levels. But you want to remove them for everyone else. You want to remove cheese from the whole pizza place because you can't be bothered to say "no cheese"

Yep, this is an apt metahor. On the other hand, asking cheese shop to made is pizza with cheese is ridiculous.

A ruleset made with advancement in mind can handle both campaign with advancement or one-shot/campaign without advancement easily. A ruleset made for oneshot can't handle a campaign with advancement without significant work to change it. Therefore the former have more applicability and can have bigger audience.

NichG
2013-05-16, 06:02 PM
Geordnet, the big problem you seem to be having is separating 'necessary' with 'desirable'.

You can make a system designed around oneshots with no advancement, no growth, absolutely fixed power level and no assumptions about the game continuing past three sessions or even one. That system may work perfectly well for the kind of game it is designed around. Those elements are not fundamentally necessary to a game system.

The issue is, you seem to be saying 'because its not necessary, it shouldn't be there at all', which is a non-sequiteu and a far less reasonable statement than your original question.

You're missing that there are people who do enjoy extended campaigns, advancement, etc, and these things do go hand in hand (if only to avoid the war exhaustion of 'what, orcs again? can we never actually eliminate the source of these invasions?' and the corresponding lack of proactivity created by that. And so it makes sense for there to be systems that cater to those players too. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist, or that somehow the rules for doing it should be 'hidden' so players in that system don't realize that it can happen and it takes a scholarly DM to discover that possibility.

For very broad systems like D&D 3.5 (or universal systems like GURPS), its important that the rules cover not just one kind of campaign/gaming experience, but many. You can do oneshots in D&D without ever needing to think about levelling. You can also do 3 year long extended campaigns. You can do games where XP is rewarded solely for fighting, or games where its rewarded solely for 'overcoming challenges', or even games where its just based on the treasure haul. You can do games about good guys and heroes, or you can do games about the PCs being villains who are trying to get enough power in one place to topple the gods/take over the world/destroy it/whatever. Its also a system where a well-built Lv5 character can utterly destroy a poorly built Lv20 character, which introduces its own problems but, to some players, is actually the point of the game.

Anyhow, advancement in general on the plus side:

- Allows mechanical character growth
- Allows players to 'grow into' their characters, as far as what abilities they have to track. They don't start with a list of 50 spells they have to know how to use; they start with 5 and it grows a little at a time. Even for experienced players, jumping into a new class or subsystem can cause problems without this.
- Allows one to seek improvement in-character (which is part and parcel of whole genres of stories)
- Is a core part of stories where the PCs are pushing their own agendas rather than serving the agenda of another (going from poor street urchin to merchant king is also a form of advancement, after all, even if it was entirely RP driven).
- Allows people who enjoy the character building part of the game to not be done with their gameplay experience before the campaign even starts.
- Allows a campaign to cover a wider breadth of situations over its span.
- Prevents war exhaustion and the feeling of never being able to gain an advantage over one's enemies (even if, mechanically, you're still fighting things of your power level, you can look and say 'I can crush these orcs with no problem no, but they were a big threat way back when').
- Creates a framework for rewards to have mechanical meaning. What I mean here is, if you eschew all things that change a character's power, rewards/bribes/etc become strictly RP-only in meaning. Why find the ancient artifact if it won't actually do anything to help? It allows decisions to be made more in-game and less in the meta-game of 'finding the artifact is how these stories always go'.


On the minus side:

- Can encourage meta-game goals if the mechanics of advancement are too separated from the in-character logic.
- Power creep, if the players become able to push for faster advancement than the GM was ready for or expecting (e.g. PCs successfully rob a magic store or something).
- Relevancy creep. Old things tend to become irrelevant because they were introduced when the PCs were low level and thus cannot stand on their own unless the PCs lift them up. As such it can be hard for the PCs to feel like there's continuity of things they find personally important.
- Mechanical relevancy creep. That feat you took at Lv1 was awesome at Lv1, but at Lv20 its a waste of a slot. Retraining rules help with this; alternately, some people see this as a sign of an organic character and see it as a plus.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 06:06 PM
Can I point out that this is taking what I consider the heart and soul of an RPG out of the game? What's wrong with getting attached to a character? Why shouldn't I strive for unique personalities among my characters?
You can still get attached to characters, and give them unique personalities.

And the only problem of getting too attached is that you can easily forget that it's a game, and take it personally if something bad happens to your character.



So... I have to keep changing PC's because you think it's bad if I do the things I like doing? I like making backstories, and I like having unique characters, and by the time I'm finished making them I'm already attached. :smallannoyed:
No, actually. You can do it as much as you want; in fact you can can make unique characters and backstories more often this way. :smalltongue:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 06:13 PM
No, actually. You can do it as much as you want; in fact you can can make unique characters and backstories more often this way. :smalltongue:

Actually? No. Because I wouldn't bother showing up to something where I have to create a new character every time. I want to see where this one leads. If I want to make endless characters and backstories, I'll write a book. >_>

Salbazier
2013-05-16, 06:14 PM
You can still get attached to characters, and give them unique personalities.

And the only problem of getting too attached is that you can easily forget that it's a game, and take it personally if something bad happens to your character.

No, actually. You can do it as much as you want; in fact you can can make unique characters and backstories more often this way. :smalltongue:

Ohh, now are you just insulting. We are not the girl with thief character in that anti D&D short comic who commit suicide because her character died.

If I am attached to my character, its mean I want to use him/her more often. Explore more of the character's personality, history. Let the character develop ect.

Can't do that with one shot.

Oh yeah, this give me the answer to you question earlier about what this the proof that people like long stories than a bunch of short stories: People demanding sequels/continuation for their favorite stories are the proof.

Mordar
2013-05-16, 06:16 PM
But is it really necessary as part of the core rules?

Not just a supplement for running extended campaigns?


Because why should an ongoing campaign be the default assumption?

Think about it. Do you really know the answer? If you say it's because most players play ongoing campaigns, is that for any reason other than because it's the default assumption? :smallconfused:

Yup - Because Gary and Dave wrote it that way. They already had rules for "one shots"...they considered the board games and wargames to cover that element. They wanted something that told a story longitudinally with the ability to turn pig farmers into kings. I might argue they were pretty successful with their little game.

Other people like more static games where the pig farmer can turn into a slightly better pig farmer, if anything at all. Many of these are a lot of fun, and a few of them have been pretty successful. Not as successful (by orders of magnitude) as Gary and Dave's game, but still made some fans and some money.

Don't like that element of Gary and Dave's game? Ignore it, or play a different game.


There are games written for one-shots, but they are not the standard...

Why limit your audience? As has been explained, you can play one-shots in any game with an "experience" methodology. You can't play a "experience" campaign in a game without that methodology.

- M

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 06:29 PM
The issue is, you seem to be saying 'because its not necessary, it shouldn't be there at all', which is a non-sequiteu and a far less reasonable statement than your original question.
I'm playing devil's advocate. I argue for the extreme, such that the "less advancement" side can be fully argued.


Just because you dislike it doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist, or that somehow the rules for doing it should be 'hidden' so players in that system don't realize that it can happen and it takes a scholarly DM to discover that possibility.
Never did I say it shouldn't exist for those who want to use it.


Anyways, responses to the upsides, how other things can have the same desirable effects etc.:

- Allows mechanical character growth
As I've said, I think that it's mainly an illusion of growth.



- Allows players to 'grow into' their characters, as far as what abilities they have to track. They don't start with a list of 50 spells they have to know how to use; they start with 5 and it grows a little at a time. Even for experienced players, jumping into a new class or subsystem can cause problems without this.
That can be done in "lateral advancement" systems too.


- Allows one to seek improvement in-character (which is part and parcel of whole genres of stories)
There are many forms of improvement, some more subtle or incremental than others.


- Is a core part of stories where the PCs are pushing their own agendas rather than serving the agenda of another (going from poor street urchin to merchant king is also a form of advancement, after all, even if it was entirely RP driven).
I have absolutely no problem with RP advancement.


- Allows people who enjoy the character building part of the game to not be done with their gameplay experience before the campaign even starts.
Just because there's no advancement doesn't mean constantly tweaking your build is out too.


- Allows a campaign to cover a wider breadth of situations over its span.
How so? Other than changing the enemies (but not relative power) or the scenery (distance is relative too) what's different?


- Prevents war exhaustion and the feeling of never being able to gain an advantage over one's enemies (even if, mechanically, you're still fighting things of your power level, you can look and say 'I can crush these orcs with no problem no, but they were a big threat way back when').
Advantages can be gained through strategy, tactics, and specialized equipment/techniques. Once you know how to exploit an orc's weak spots, they aren't as much as a threat even if you're nominally no more powerful than before. And vertical advancement can always be reintroduced in specific instances as required by the story.


- Creates a framework for rewards to have mechanical meaning. What I mean here is, if you eschew all things that change a character's power, rewards/bribes/etc become strictly RP-only in meaning. Why find the ancient artifact if it won't actually do anything to help? It allows decisions to be made more in-game and less in the meta-game of 'finding the artifact is how these stories always go'.
Artifacts would still have actual effects, of course; and that's because they are explicitly special exceptions. And other RP rewards are just as tangible as before: if the king puts an army at your back, how is that not a reward? :smallbiggrin:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 06:33 PM
Artifacts would still have actual effects, of course; and that's because they are explicitly special exceptions. And other RP rewards are just as tangible as before: if the king puts an army at your back, how is that not a reward?

Because you just nullified my personal contribution to everything in favour of raw numbers. Seems more like a punishment.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 06:33 PM
Actually? No. Because I wouldn't bother showing up to something where I have to create a new character every time. I want to see where this one leads. If I want to make endless characters and backstories, I'll write a book. >_>

You can still see where it leads. Not only during the adventure, but you'll continue to see echoes of his actions long after he's dead.

Of course I understand if this isn't exactly what you want; I'm just saying it's possible to have fun for character-building reasons in serial one-shots.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 06:36 PM
Because you just nullified my personal contribution to everything in favour of raw numbers. Seems more like a punishment.

Your personal contribution is that the army knows where to be to fight the undead horde, which is no longer invincible due to your actions, and now as a reward you get to call the shots in the epic battle against the necromancer (which still probably won't succumb to sheer numbers, so you'll get to finish him off). :smallbiggrin:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 06:36 PM
You can still see where it leads. Not only during the adventure, but you'll continue to see echoes of his actions long after he's dead.

Short adventure and a bunch of effects I have no stake or control in vs a long campaign with character development, detailed relationships, and progression? I'm taking the long campaign, thanks.


Of course I understand if this isn't exactly what you want; I'm just saying it's possible to have fun for character-building reasons in serial one-shots.

Possible but suggests you don't actually like the gameplay.


Your personal contribution is that the army knows where to be to fight the undead horde, which is no longer invincible due to your actions, and now as a reward you get to call the shots in the epic battle against the necromancer (which still probably won't succumb to sheer numbers, so you'll get to finish him off). :smallbiggrin:

Your arbitrary additions to this scenario are annoying, you know?

Also, still a punishment. You've reduced how impressive my achievements are by sticking a bunch of glory-stealing mooks. >_>

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 06:47 PM
Possible but suggests you don't actually like the gameplay.
Possible is enough for me, it was only a thought experiment. :smalltongue:
(I'd probably prefer an actual campaign, too.)



Your arbitrary additions to this scenario are annoying, you know?
Well these events don't exist in a vacuum. If you get a reward like that, it's because you'll have earned it.



Also, still a punishment. You've reduced how impressive my achievements are by sticking a bunch of glory-stealing mooks. >_>
Glory-stealing? :smallconfused:

You're still the center of the story; you don't have to do everything by yourself. Just look at Frodo: all he really did was chuck a bit of jewelry into a volcano. Was his "glory" "stolen" by the armies fighting at the Black Gates?

(And I would've seen the army as a direct extention of my character's will, anyways.)

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 06:51 PM
Well these events don't exist in a vacuum. If you get a reward like that, it's because you'll have earned it.

Glory-stealing? :smallconfused:

You're still the center of the story; you don't have to do everything by yourself. Just look at Frodo: all he really did was chuck a bit of jewelry into a volcano. Was his "glory" "stolen" by the armies fighting at the Black Gates[/SIZE]

Your 'reward' is either solving a problem for me, or declaring me too weak to do things myself. Either way, an army is the furthest thing from a reward. It does not improve my character, it's incredibly specific in usage, and in this case it's basically just forcing me into a direct confrontation. >_>

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 07:01 PM
Your 'reward' is either solving a problem for me, or declaring me too weak to do things myself. Either way, an army is the furthest thing from a reward. It does not improve my character, it's incredibly specific in usage, and in this case it's basically just forcing me into a direct confrontation. >_>

Tell me, do you honestly think not being a virtual demigod able to wipe out an army single-handedly makes you any less of a hero? :smallconfused:

I'd have actually thought it would have made you more of a hero, since you fought despite not being powerful enough to do it yourself. That's true heroism. :smallamused:

Anyways, you can always refuse the army. And having men under your command is a useful thing in general; instead of an army it could have been an airship crew, or a fiefdom, or a trusty squire. And they'll follow your commands, so you aren't (usually) required to use them in any specific way. (Not to mention other RP rewards, ranging from amnesty for past crimes to five acres and a mule.)

Raineh Daze
2013-05-16, 07:04 PM
Tell me, do you honestly think not being a virtual demigod able to wipe out an army single-handedly makes you any less of a hero? :smallconfused:

Yes.


I'd have actually thought it would have made you more of a hero, since you fought despite not being powerful enough to do it yourself. That's true heroism. :smallamused:

More courageous, certainly. Less of a hero. Instead of taking on an entire army, I'm letting other people do most of the work and basically sneaking round the back.


Anyways, you can always refuse the army. And having men under your command is a useful thing in general; instead of an army it could have been an airship crew, or a fiefdom, or a trusty squire. And they'll follow your commands, so you aren't (usually) required to use them in any specific way.

Can I kick them all into a volcano for being an annoying distraction I don't want to deal with, seeing as I'm apparently playing a hero and not a military captain?

Your idea of 'RP rewards' are things that will either break the game in half (I have an army, explicitly loyal to me?) or are functionally useless (wow, I have a mule and a farm. Great. I'm supposed to be a hero, here).

TheDarkDM
2013-05-16, 07:10 PM
Geordnet, you realize that your assertion that tabletop rpg's should be treated more like tabletop wargames is going to get almost no traction in a forum dedicated to tabletop rpg's, right?

Gan The Grey
2013-05-16, 07:12 PM
Your 'reward' is either solving a problem for me, or declaring me too weak to do things myself. Either way, an army is the furthest thing from a reward. It does not improve my character, it's incredibly specific in usage, and in this case it's basically just forcing me into a direct confrontation. >_>

Okay, I feel like this is either deliberately antagonistic or unknowingly narrow-minded. I can think of MANY reasons why getting to lead an army is a reward, most of them story-based like the OP is advocating for. If you've gotten the army, it could be because THAT was the solution you were after. And why does EVERYTHING have to improve your character? You are playing the game for the (entertainment) experience, not more letters and numbers to write on a character sheet. And an army SHOULD be incredibly specific in usage. The only reason you got it was to solve a specific problem that you couldn't solve alone. And no, it doesn't force you into a direct confrontation. An army could easily be used as a diversion, a stalling tactic, or even as a way to REMOVE open warfare from play, as the villain could then realize that it wouldn't be beneficial to engage your character as his losses would be too great. Use your imagination.

Truth is, I feel like, with few exceptions, many of the responses in this thread deliberately attempt to ignore any viewpoint that would validate the OP, and I'm unsure as to why there seems to be so much antagonism towards a poster whom I have yet to see any sort of disrespectful behavior.

Verte
2013-05-16, 07:23 PM
I would argue that a one-off or short adventure could still have character development, detailed relationships, and progression, but that they would occur at different paces. I mean, it's like comparing films to long-running tv shows. In a good film, there is generally definite character development for the main characters, the relationships that occur are generally meaningful to the plot and character development, and there is a story arc that progresses. However, in long-running tv shows, character development usually occurs over a long period of time (and not in every episode), relationships between characters are not always meaningful (and again only develop over the course of many episodes) and the overall story arc may not show definite progression for many episodes.

What this means is that you could have a one-off or short adventure that progresses like a film, and therefore still has meaty character development, relationships, and plot progression. It might actually be better, since it would lack the "filler" of the longer campaign and it might have a more focused story.

Personally, I prefer something in-between a one-off and multi-year campaign. I usually get sick of whatever character I'm playing after a year, but it usually takes more than one session for a group of characters to really gel. I tend to like multi-session adventures or short campaigns with a definite end in sight best.

TheDarkDM
2013-05-16, 07:25 PM
Okay, I feel like this is either deliberately antagonistic or unknowingly narrow-minded. I can think of MANY reasons why getting to lead an army is a reward, most of them story-based like the OP is advocating for. If you've gotten the army, it could be because THAT was the solution you were after. And why does EVERYTHING have to improve your character? You are playing the game for the (entertainment) experience, not more letters and numbers to write on a character sheet. And an army SHOULD be incredibly specific in usage. The only reason you got it was to solve a specific problem that you couldn't solve alone. And no, it doesn't force you into a direct confrontation. An army could easily be used as a diversion, a stalling tactic, or even as a way to REMOVE open warfare from play, as the villain could then realize that it wouldn't be beneficial to engage your character as his losses would be too great. Use your imagination.

Truth is, I feel like many of the responses in this thread deliberately attempt to ignore any viewpoint that would validate the OP, and I'm unsure as to why there seems to be so much antagonism towards a poster whom I have yet to see any sort of disrespectful behavior.

In response to your second point, it's because Geordnet's original question has been answered a dozen times over, and he/she has discarded all of them in favor of pursuing his/her premise. Now, this would be understandable if Geordnet had some personal experience driving this inquiry, but he/she has admitted to having little experience with rpg's - so, most people who are still involved are trying with increasing vehemence to convince Geordnet that he or she has started with a fallacious premise.

Also, Raineh Daze is not obliged to construct a reason the army would be good - Geordnet submitted the army as an example of what he or she considers to be an adequate reward removed from direct advancement and Raineh Daze was unsatisfied. It falls to Geordnet to convince Raineh Daze otherwise.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 07:33 PM
Geordnet, you realize that your assertion that tabletop rpg's should be treated more like tabletop wargames is going to get almost no traction in a forum dedicated to tabletop rpg's, right?

Yeah, I wasn't expecting much. :smalltongue:



Yes.
Well then, I would say you've got a pretty shallow definition of heroism...



More courageous, certainly. Less of a hero. Instead of taking on an entire army, I'm letting other people do most of the work and basically sneaking round the back.
It's supposed to be a cooperative effort. You wouldn't be able to do it without them, they wouldn't be able to do it without you. Shared glory, which endures more than personal glory.

Personally, I'd be bored hearing tales of how one guy pwns everyone by himself. I'd much rather read about the level 1 aristocrat who destroyed a DR ~4+ dark lord. :smallbiggrin:



Can I kick them all into a volcano for being an annoying distraction I don't want to deal with, seeing as I'm apparently playing a hero and not a military captain?
The difference being? :smallconfused:



Your idea of 'RP rewards' are things that will either break the game in half (I have an army, explicitly loyal to me?) or are functionally useless (wow, I have a mule and a farm. Great. I'm supposed to be a hero, here).
RP rewards will be, of course, tailored to the character and the campaign. You gave your character goals and desires, right? Well, RP rewards are fulfilling them.

Geordnet
2013-05-16, 07:40 PM
so, most people who are still involved are trying with increasing vehemence to convince Geordnet that he or she has started with a fallacious premise

No need, I've figured that one out already. :smalltongue:

It isn't as bad a thing as I thought it was. But, then again, I've yet to be convinced it's really good. :smallwink:



What this means is that you could have a one-off or short adventure that progresses like a film, and therefore still has meaty character development, relationships, and plot progression. It might actually be better, since it would lack the "filler" of the longer campaign and it might have a more focused story.

Personally, I prefer something in-between a one-off and multi-year campaign. I usually get sick of whatever character I'm playing after a year, but it usually takes more than one session for a group of characters to really gel. I tend to like multi-session adventures or short campaigns with a definite end in sight best.

That's actually what I was thinking of when I meant "one-shot".

(While we're at it, you could have multiple one-shots of different characters in the same general area, they just take turns as PCs/NPCs. I can think of several TV shows that rotate characters into the spotlight that way.)

Gan The Grey
2013-05-16, 07:48 PM
In response to your second point, it's because Geordnet's original question has been answered a dozen times over, and he/she has discarded all of them in favor of pursuing his/her premise. Now, this would be understandable if Geordnet had some personal experience driving this inquiry, but he/she has admitted to having little experience with rpg's - so, most people who are still involved are trying with increasing vehemence to convince Geordnet that he or she has started with a fallacious premise.

Also, Raineh Daze is not obliged to construct a reason the army would be good - Geordnet submitted the army as an example of what he or she considers to be an adequate reward removed from direct advancement and Raineh Daze was unsatisfied. It falls to Geordnet to convince Raineh Daze otherwise.

I don't know OP's sex, but for ease, I'm just gonna go with male until proven otherwise.

Ah. I don't feel like convincing him that his opinion is wrong should be the goal. This creates a situation where one 'loses' and one 'wins', where the convinced is shown to be 'wrong' in their initial premise, and the convincer shown to be 'right'. I don't believe this is necessary. OP illustrates a different opinion than most, maybe a narrow opinion, but I do find merit in his opinion. In other words, I can place myself in his shoes and understand his position. I feel like all he has really done is continue to offer alternate viewpoints to opinions put forth by others. Nothing wrong with this. This is, fundamentally, how human beings slowly come to understand one another.

I do strongly disagree with your second point. In a discussion, both parties must at least attempt to place themselves in each other's shoes, attempt to understand their opponent, if any sort of effective communication is to take place. To actively avoid seeking a way foster this connection is take a deliberately antagonistic stance. Now, I assume it is possible that Raineh Daze just can't envision any possible beneficial circumstances, but I would prefer to think that he/she is intelligent and has simply fallen prey to simple pride. One should not always be expected to have to convince the unconvincable. At some point, a line is crossed and the burden falls to unconvinced to adopt a more open stance. Just my opinion, but I believe that line was crossed.

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 11:53 PM
The could have been aristocrats, but the Shire doesn't really have much of an aristocracy, it's more of an idealized version of rural Britain.

:smalleek: You know how the countryside worked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor), right? Rural Britain absolutely had aristocrats, as did the Shire - the Hobbit ones just didn't have noble titles. Frodo had no job (neither did Bilbo, but even he was very well-off before he became rich with draconic lucre), he presumably just owned land others worked.


Other people like more static games where the pig farmer can turn into a slightly better pig farmer, if anything at all.

Are you bad-talking HârnMaster, mister? :smallamused:


As I've said, I think that it's mainly an illusion of growth.

But I addressed this already! Can you like go back to my first post that you didn't respond to and address these points or something? Growth of numbers does make you better in RPGs that aren't 3.X! Not to mention its a requirement for a system where you can go from fighting scrubby goblins to fighting mighty dragons (like D&D!) - unless the goblin and dragon are mechanically very close to each other (a bit ridiculous, unless we're talking of a mechanical granularity on par with Games Workshop's HeroQuest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest)), numbers have to change, and the most natural way is to have rules for them to change.

You might as well argue against having rules for combat as against having rules for advancement - they exist for the same reasons, after all.

Hey, why have rules? Wait, you even said you want them, so you understand why...


You seem to have been reduced to "thought experiment" and "Devil's advocate" defenses, suggesting to me you've realized your initial post was a bit of a load, but can't actually back off your side of this and admit it. Come on, dude.

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 01:01 AM
Ah. I don't feel like convincing him that his opinion is wrong should be the goal.
Well, if it was you'd have already won. I've been convinced that it isn't nearly as much as a problem as I thought it was, but I'm still holding it since I feel there's yet more to understand...



You seem to have been reduced to "thought experiment" and "Devil's advocate" defenses, suggesting to me you've realized your initial post was a bit of a load, but can't actually back off your side of this and admit it. Come on, dude.
"Defenses"? :smallconfused:

I care not for ego, or vanity; I'm just continuing the discussion because I like debate. :smalltongue:

I'd like to hear a more detailed explanation of how mere growth of numbers can be a true change, though.

Sylthia
2013-05-17, 01:03 AM
:smalleek: You know how the countryside worked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor), right? Rural Britain absolutely had aristocrats, as did the Shire - the Hobbit ones just didn't have noble titles. Frodo had no job (neither did Bilbo, but even he was very well-off before he became rich with draconic lucre), he presumably just owned land others worked.


Yeah, I know how the aristocracy worked. That's why I said idealized version, but Bilbo and Frodo didn't really have vassals or even that many servants in general besides a gardener. The hobbits don't really have a feudal system, they follow more of a rudimentary tribal government. Bilbo and Frodo got most of their money from the Tooks and later from Dragon loot.

The hobbits are more like Thomas Jefferson idea of the minimal government with farmers, ideally freeman, providing for themselves with minimal government interference. (Yes, Jefferson was a plantation owner, but he didn't always practice what he preached.)

Rhynn
2013-05-17, 01:18 AM
"Defenses"? :smallconfused:

I care not for ego, or vanity; I'm just continuing the discussion because I like debate. :smalltongue:

You do know that's a standard troll refrain, right? I'm not accusing you of being one, but you might consider your presentation.

But in that case, can you debate my original points (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283915&p=15247908) ?


I'd like to hear a more detailed explanation of how mere growth of numbers can be a true change, though.

I've explained repeatedly: because it changes how the characters relate to the setting.

First, fighting one goblin is a challenge.

Later, fighting one dragon is a challenge.

This is a big difference in how the characters relate to the setting.

In my MERP game, the PCs' first adventures involved sneaking around ruins and desperately fighting a few orcs, to get some gold and a Númenorean sword. Their last adventure was sneaking into freaking Angmar, through Cârn Dum, and fighting trolls and risking being caught by the Witch-King, to retrieve one of Durin's artifacts.

And the mechanical aspect: unless a dragon and goblin are very close to equivalent in ability, including both as potential opponents requires a great gap in abilities that requires PCs to increase in ability to have a chance in a fight against the dragon.

NichG
2013-05-17, 01:35 AM
I'm playing devil's advocate. I argue for the extreme, such that the "less advancement" side can be fully argued.


The problem is, this doesn't help argue the 'less advancement' side. This just turns everything into absurdity. Its like trying to make a point about cool versus warm colors by saying "Why use red? Yellow is a color too!". People attack the obvious weaknesses in the argument - the fact that it overreaches - because they're more obvious than any actual weaknesses or strengths the argument might have.

It'd be far more productive to actually pick a concrete, reasonable question for debate and focus on that, rather than something where the answer is 'of course' but you're actually trying to argue something else under the table. Furthermore, its probably best not to pick a topic designed explicitly as an attack on a play style, but rather ask things in a way that encourages people to remain objective (if, that is, you want to actually explore the idea rather than just incite emotion).

For example:

- What are the consequences of designing a system to only have lateral advancement instead of vertical?

- What would have to be done to make a reasonable system with no advancement of any sort?

- How can the parts of a game that depends/is based around direct character advancements be fulfilled in other ways?



Anyways, responses to the upsides, how other things can have the same desirable effects etc.:


Again, I'm not sure what you're actually arguing anymore. The spoilered responses are a mix of 'I don't have a problem with X' (which as you've said in other points in the thread, you don't have a personal problem with advancement now?) and 'this can be done with X other system' (which I'm not sure is actually a subject of dispute at all). What exactly are you trying to argue?

- That the listed things are not advantages of advancement? (I would argue against this)
- That the advantages of advancement are not unique to it? (I would not argue against this but I think its kind of meaningless personally. Red and yellow are both colors, but that doesn't mean that 'we don't need red, we have yellow!')
- That fundamentally the alternate ways of implementing the benefits of advancement are somehow better? (this could be a concrete argument, but so far you've mostly argued that there are alternate ways)
- Something else?

avr
2013-05-17, 02:44 AM
The could have been aristocrats, but the Shire doesn't really have much of an aristocracy, it's more of an idealized version of rural Britain.

I'd say all the hobbits gained several levels, even Frodo, it just might have been counteracted by the curse of the Ring really dragging him down.

Merry and Pippin both got a few levels in Fighter, from getting training from Boromir and they both served Rohan and Gondor respectively. They even got some ability score bonuses from drinking the Ent draught.

Sam got tons of XP from dragging Frodo down to Mordor and killing Shelob.
A large part of the point of the Scouring of the Shire at the end of the Return of the King book (left out of the movie) was that the hobbits were now capable of taking on problems which their homebody friends weren't.

Another system for which adventuring advancement is largely irrelevant is Ars Magica. There is advancement over time (years) for magi in that system, but the XP gain over years for ordinary folk tends to be countered by the disadvantages of aging.

SiuiS
2013-05-17, 02:50 AM
Not just XP, but gaining new skills, getting better gear, and becoming more powerful in general.

Define necessity? Continuation and advancement go hand in hand, though advancement has many forms. It's perfectly possible to play a D&D campaign as a bunch of episodes, without advancement or levelling at all, with only big sort awards changing anything. Crunchy. It's also possible to play it like a skirmish game, one and Done each time. But this resists a feeling of continuance, story and narrative.


Level progression of some sort seems to be taken for granted in RPGs in general, but what does it actually add to the game? It doesn't matter within a specific encounter, encourages metagaming and solving every problem with blunt force, and is only necessary in a small fraction of stories. Here's just some of the fallacies I see:

Speaking of fallacies, your first point about specific encounters is the same as the old arrow fallacy, that because time is a series of infinite points, and there is no motion in any one point, motion does not exist. A game is not a series of encounters, nor is it any specific encounter.

Meta gaming isn't encouraged by default by getting better, either. Getting better at a task is a natural result of repeating a task, and some of that improvement can be carried to other things. If you are doing poorly in fights, and you fight more in a safer environment, you'll do better against stronger opponents. That's not metagaming. It's training, and people do it all the time for college or fitness or criminal intent.

Getting stronger or leveling doesn't encourage the use of blunt force; that's strictly a player thing. In fact, many leveling options wind up being more subtle and finessable than not. Blunt force is certainly a tool you have but not the only one.


But the number go up:
Raw power increase is, at heart, not really a change at all: your enemies will necessarily be getting similar boosts if the game is to remain fair. And since power is relative, you're back to square one again.

This is false, because the increase in raw number also allows for a broader acceptable range.



MOAR POWEH:
Whenever the players are confronted with a difficult challenge, their standard responce is to go out, level up, then try again using fundimentally the same method. Not to try a different strategy, or approach the problem from a different angle. On a related note, the usual way to make the villain "scary" is to have him start out at a much higher level than the PCs, which leads to a lot of PC deaths from premature confrontations... And also creates the illusion that no villain is ever invincible (causing more GM facepalms).

This is false. I have never seen a Ayer outside of a video game "grind" or go out to "level up", ever. Often, players gain levels incidentally from leaving to organize a new plan of attack and change strategy, but that not the goal. The goal is the new plan or strategy.

A villain shouldn't be invincible. That's not a player issue, that's a DM issue. If as GM you need the same power wank that you accuse players of, that's not the players being wrong.



A master of all trades is a paragon of none:
Just as power level is relative, so is specialization. A character with a "high" rank in multiple skills is really just a very skilled generalist.


False. Benchmarks can be and are often static. It's entirely possible to be a master surgeon, musician, chef, carpenter, painter and song writer, because the difficulty of achieving mastery doesn't come from a level based formula. It's static. See first point.



Crippling Overspecialization:
Because the game has to remain challenging to all levels, skill challanges also must scale with level. But this just means that a good specialist has all skills they don't actively specialize in become practically useless. New skill points (or the equivalent) must be spent constantly improving skills the character already has, if they are to remain relevant.

False. See above and first point.


Meh, it's only a plus one sword:
Expecting to get plainly superior equipment later on devalues the equipment the PCs currently have. This is creates a conflict between the mechanics and roleplay: on the one hand, naming one's sword is very traditional and adds depth to the character; on the other, it's a horrible tactical decision to commit to using the same weapon 5-10 levels from now.


False. This occurs only in games where magic items drop literally at random from enemy corpses. The granularity of a game is usually such that forsaking a good weapon now for a better one later is suicide, or at least a reasoned and interesting narrative choice.



It's nothing I won't be able to do in a few levels:
Whenever there's advancement, it's the assumption that the players can reach any power level they want, given enough time. This makes it harder to make authoritative figures seem worthy of respect; and it's harder to make the game world seem bigger than just what the PCs do.

This depends on advancement and application. It is not a universal issue, not is it an issue with leveling itself as a concept.


Slay him and take his experience points:
Why wouldn't the players have a reason to kill every living creature they come across if they know they'll be rewarded (however minimally) for it?


False. characters are people with motivations outside of a bulldog desire to gain more points, and advancement comes from overcoming challenges, not murder. Killing things bestows XP when it's challenging to do so, not just because you knifed something.


High score:
Encouraging "score keeping" can be either good or bad, depending on your players and the nature of the game. But either way, there are better ways to do this than XP; and the fact that it's as (or more) often a bad thing means it shouldn't be standard.

Not a function of leveling. Aside from knowing your level, I've never seen, heard of or experienced this.



Quadratic Wizardry:
No level advancement means you don't ever have the problem of one class/build advancing faster than the other; and therefore it's much easier to balance them.


Quadratic wizardry is not a problem, in the literal sense, jut like X is not a problem. "Quadratic wizards and linear fighters" can be a problem (just like "xy=y" is a problem), but it is not because of levelin. It emerges from a different branch of the games it is present in entirely.

Fun note: this is only a problem in one edition of dungeons and dragons. It's not really a problem anywhere else.



Munchkinry:
If there isn't any way to gain power, then logically there isn't any way to gain obscene amounts of power. If overall power is generally kept the same, then the best one can do is specialize to a specific situation -which has its own drawbacks.

The idea that this dives munchkinry is somewhat accurate but the idea that munchkinry comes from leveling is not. It's entirely possible to be so good at one task you can apply it across the board.


Character growth? That's RP.

Literal growth, in knowledge and skill, is not in RP, no.


New abilities? You don't need raw power for that.

Raw power != leveling. Acquiring new abilities or skills is, strictly, "leveling up".


Looking forwards? There are lots of things you can look forwards to.

Not without leveling. A character designed to start out as a bumbling but good hearted stable hand who eventually becomes a proficient and lauded knight, thanked for her skill and valor... Can't. Because without advancement there is no change. The character cannot play this out, and in fact now must use a lot of strictly metagame knowledge to make sure the character is at peak condition before you start the game. You've removed advancement and all it cost you was a slew of potential character ideas that won't work and forced metagaming to overcome this hurdle.

:smallwink:

DeusMortuusEst
2013-05-17, 02:57 AM
I'd like to hear a more detailed explanation of how mere growth of numbers can be a true change, though.

1 =/= 2. There. True change by 'growth' in numbers, or change in value.

Besides this you, as the player, get to choose what the change in numerical values mean to your character. That's the RP part of playing an individual that is changing.

Your Rogue went from +1d6 to +2d6 sneak attack? For some people that might indicate that he understands how to aim better when attacking from certain angles or how to twist his blade to make a larger wound.

Perhaps the increase in sneak attack shows that the character has some mystical force that enables him to leave dark shadow magic in the wounds of his foes when he strikes, hurting them even more. It's all about that individual and how you choose to fluff your character.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-17, 03:44 AM
The reason I was arguing an army isn't a reward is fairly simple: he was trying to convince me it would be a reward. I don't like controlling armies. The flaw of pronouns. :smallbiggrin:

I view a reward as something with no strings attached that I get to choose how to use, anyway. An army does not fit these criteria.

Waar
2013-05-17, 04:07 AM
I'd like to hear a more detailed explanation of how mere growth of numbers can be a true change, though.

Take SAGA as example, you can att level 1 run into some cl1(~ level1) stormtroopers (whether they actually should be cl1 is Another matter)
At level 20 you can still run into cl1 stormtroopers, the "mooks" of a galactic empire hardly imroves because you level up now do they :smalltongue:.
At level 1 these stormtroppers are indivdually a significant threat to you, at level 20 not so much, how is this not "true" change? :roach: =/= :xykon:

Growth of numbers only stop being a "true" change when everybody (including the rest of the World) has the very same growth of the very same numbers. If the average Joe has say 30 hp and "5" in his ability to hit people why would that change as your PC (not Joe) become more experienced? :smallconfused:

EdokTheTwitch
2013-05-17, 05:15 AM
Well, i'm sorry if somebody already suggested it (only had time to read the first page), but why not simply play E6, as i can see that you are pretty close to 3.5?

It gives you a period in which the characters grow, and at one point they stop growing vertically and just expand on a horizontal scale, through feats, incantations and the like. It pretty much takes the best of both worlds :D

Waar
2013-05-17, 06:07 AM
Well, i'm sorry if somebody already suggested it (only had time to read the first page), but why not simply play E6, as i can see that you are pretty close to 3.5?

It gives you a period in which the characters grow, and at one point they stop growing vertically and just expand on a horizontal scale, through feats, incantations and the like. It pretty much takes the best of both worlds :D

At level 6 you probably have more than 4 times as many hitpoints as of lv1, if realism is a factor, this might be a problem. Unarmored characters running around just fine with several (theoretical max damage) arrows in them just might break immersion.
It does however (probably) solve many of his stated problems, exept the fact that 5^2 >5 :smallwink:

Hunter Noventa
2013-05-17, 08:19 AM
You need to play RIFTS. You start out with ridiculous power and weapons even at level 1...and you'll never level up because the EXP system is so broken. (Or at least I've never been in a game that lasted long enough for anyone to actually level up)

It does mean you'll spend your whole career as a pilot with a 36% chance to NOT crash any given craft you enter though...

jindra34
2013-05-17, 08:25 AM
There is also a sense of scale. 3.5, because of how huge the jumps in power between levels can be and the lack of granularity, is a horrible basis for saying growth is bad. Yeah having characters go from nothings to demi-gods in a couple of in game months might be fun once or twice, but it also means you keep moving through entire fields of things, so nothing can stay around without doing the same. Which I think we can all agree is bad. But a cop going from being a rookie who is unsteady of hand, nervous, and relatively useless in his first arrest, to being a skilled veteran several in game years later, and teaching a new guy how to deal with that. That is good. And to be able to do that you need to be able to improve your character. Which means either leveling or advancement. And oh look that improvement ISN'T just for show.

Ozfer
2013-05-17, 09:14 AM
One thing that I find self-contradictory in your arguments, is that you refer to Frodo from LOTR. If you want to emulate stories anywhere close to this, remember Merry and Pippin? They became respectable fighters after the War of the Ring, and went on to prove it at the scouring of the Shire. In your hypothetical system, almost all realism is lost, along with your immersion. If I practice at an archery range for a year, I dang well better improve at archery.

Rhynn
2013-05-17, 09:19 AM
If I practice at an archery range for a year, I dang well better improve at archery.

As far as I could tell, his stance was that this is "story" (apparently exempted from "no advancement" for no reason?), and that it should not have rules and should be by fiat instead?

Because, you know, combat etc. should have rules, but advancement shouldn't because... uh...

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me, either.

Jay R
2013-05-17, 11:07 AM
But is it really necessary as part of the core rules?

Not just a supplement for running extended campaigns?


(Alternatively, does an RPG have to be designed to run that long? Most books wouldn't qualify.)


Because why should an ongoing campaign be the default assumption?

Think about it. Do you really know the answer? If you say it's because most players play ongoing campaigns, is that for any reason other than because it's the default assumption? :smallconfused:

I think that this is the core question, and I admit that I've never considered it before. Now that you bring it up, I've thougfht about it, and here are my initial conclusions.

("initial conclusions"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?)

The first answer is historical - it grew out of miniatures. They already had the idea of a warlord with a particular army. They wanted to look at something more - which became the growth of the characters. But that only answers why Aneson, and then Gygax, the Blume brothers, Ward and others, felt that way.

What "should" the basic rules for a fantasy RPG include?

Well, they should allow young people on their first adventure holding their own against goblins one-on-one.
They should allow experienced warriors able to take a larger force of goblins or orcs, or able to face ogres one-on-one.
They should allow greater warriors who could face dragons.
They should allow great warlords who control the armies of a barony, or a kingdom.

All of those are staples of fantasy literature; all of them are situations some of us like to play; all of them should be included in the basic game to get me to buy it.

All that's missing now is the ability to use the same character for all of the above, and you have level advancement as a basic game, simply to allow me to bring a character through all the above.

So the legitimate question is: why does it need to be the same character? And if the adventures are unconnected, I don't see any particular need except the player's attachment to his character. (I don't discount that, by the way. "Because the players want it" is the primary reason for designing a game.)

But I don't particularly like games with completely unconnected adventures. My current 2E elven mage/thief started out as an outcast orphan, joining an expedition to start a colony on a newly-discovered continent. Everything he has done from then until now has led to him being the Earl of Devon with a 4,000 person army, a militia of thousands more, running a military college and a bardic college, etc. I know who his allies are, who his rivals are, and who his enemies are through having lived through all his adventures.

I don't want to run a high-level character who I didn't start as a low-level one, because his position is based on everything that has happened. Also, I get many different kinds of challenges over time, all while developing the same character. Because developing a character over time is a crucial part of the game for me, some sort of advancement system is necessary

That's why I believe that the basic game I want to play should include advancement over time. If that isn't what you want out of your role-playing experience, then you wouldn't want it. I do.

[A related question is this: Would I feel the same way if I hadn't started with Arneson and Gygax's game that assumed advancement? And the answer is: I don't know. But also, I don't care. What I like is what I like, and the reasons I like it aren't that important.]

EdokTheTwitch
2013-05-17, 12:37 PM
At level 6 you probably have more than 4 times as many hitpoints as of lv1, if realism is a factor, this might be a problem. Unarmored characters running around just fine with several (theoretical max damage) arrows in them just might break immersion.
It does however (probably) solve many of his stated problems, exept the fact that 5^2 >5 :smallwink:

Well, that is definitively true. However, i guess that can easily be refluffed if you treat HP as "Luck of the hero" that runs out instead of actual physical health, right?
Or maybe, it can always be assumed that a warrior that has took several arrows over the years learns, or even gain a reflex, to position himself to take the arrow in such a way that it doesnt damage him as badly (yeah, low on realism, but i guess it can be considered).

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 01:35 PM
I feel the need to clarify my current opinions:


I am not arguing about people getting better in real life, just how this should be reflected in game.
It's not advancement in general I'm opposed to: it's automatic 'vertical' advancement.

If there's a story reason to advance, by all means advance! If the story calls for you to be fighting "stronger" opponents, and for your prior foes to seem weaker, then that they should! It's only gaining power as an implicit assumption that I have a problem with.

Gaining new abilities depends on the power of the ability: going from a safecracker to a safecracker and a con man could be okay when learning to breathe fire or regenerate wouldn't.




But in that case, can you debate my original points (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283915&p=15247908) ?

All right then:

That's an assertion. It may be try in some cases, but it is not an universal truth.
It's more of a fundamental thing; that in general 3:2 is not really different from 99:66. I'm just trying to say not to automatically assume "more = better".

(See later response for how you can do more important things without getting more powerful.)



It's a perfectly logical approach! If you're up against an apparently insurmountable challenge, one perfectly sensible - and typical, outside of RPGs - response is to go out and find a power that can overcome it. You need to kill a dragon? You go find a dragon-slaying sword. That is good! It means player choices can create player-driven adventures! That's wonderful.
This was one of the points I made on faulty assumptions; I was thinking more of grinding from MMOs. (Actually, it was talk about XP gain in general on that "grinding" thread that inspired me to start this one...)



Can you clarify this complaint? What does this mean? In almost all systems, if I invest in a lot of skill, then I won't be as good at a particular one as someone who invests only in that. That's sensible, right? You're able to handle more situations, but aren't necessarily the first choice if your whole group is there and able to make the choice. (Neither a given.)
Right, I was sort of going off here, and seeing a problem where there wasn't one. I didn't need to write this section at all. :smalltongue:



This sounds entirely like a complaint about D&D. It really doesn't apply to most other RPGs.
Yeah, this and a few other points stemmed from me assuming other RPGs suffered from certain problems that are mainly just D&D's.



How would you create a game with no character advancement where PCs can go from fighting 3' puny goblins to fighting 100' long dragons? How do you accommodate that range of raw power in potential opponents to heroes without character advancement?
Simple: you do it through RP. (Which includes "RP advancement".) The goblins were weak from the beginning, but still threats; the dragon will never cease to be extremely dangerous, but is not invincible.

Perhaps it is due to my greater exposure to historical wargames that I'm more familiar with how deceptive the notion of "raw power" is. When I play against my dad (whom is an ex-army officer), I make one false step and I've lost. Of course, the opposite is true as well. But it's always the little details that get you: the slimmest of margins and the humblest of instruments. "The harder they fall", indeed. :smallamused:


I've explained repeatedly: because it changes how the characters relate to the setting.

First, fighting one goblin is a challenge.

Later, fighting one dragon is a challenge.

This is a big difference in how the characters relate to the setting.
First, I would argue that having a change in how your players relate to the setting is optional. Desirable to many, sure; but optional.

Secondly, relation to the setting does not require becoming more powerful. Again, I'm going to use Frodo as an example here. The relationship to the setting is primarily RP-based, and in fact level advancement might even act as a crutch for coming up with better stories in some cases (but that's just speculation).

You don't need to kill the army of invaders all by yourself, you just need to bring the warning to the king. You don't need to be powerful enough to destroy the giant golem with brute force, you just need to find its weak spot. Sometimes you don't even need to stop the unstoppable foe, you just need to hold them off long enough for the civilians to evacuate! It can be done, perhaps better, in RP.



And the mechanical aspect: unless a dragon and goblin are very close to equivalent in ability, including both as potential opponents requires a great gap in abilities that requires PCs to increase in ability to have a chance in a fight against the dragon.
Not necessarily: that's only true if you tackle both problems with a head-on attack. You could be powerful enough to easily slaughter a goblin, and a dragon powerful enough that it would easily roast you alive or prove death from above in the open, but both can easily be appropriate challenges.

What do you do to stop a goblin from murdering people in the dark of night? Poisoning the well? Causing sickness and crop blight? Even if the party has a constant watch on their own stuff, they'll fail in their quest if they can't protect others -and they can't be everywhere.

And on the other end of the spectrum, if frontally attacking a dragon is suicide there are always other ways. Sneak into the dragon's lair, where the confined space robs him of his flight advantage. Take him while he's sleeping after a meal, so he's bloated and groggy. Get a magic charm from the witch-woman in the woods to ward off dragon fire. Collapse the cave down on top of him. Recover the magic sword Tailbiter. Challenge him to a game of riddles.

It is very much possible to have a wide variety of challenges and impacts on the setting without ever having crude advancement of power, at least not in basic mechanical terms.

For the record: although it's possible to do it without any advancement at all, I agree that gets rather stale quickly. I'd think the best method would be a mainly lateral-advancement system, with just a little vertical advancement. Just barely enough for it to be noticable, though.




- What are the consequences of designing a system to only have lateral advancement instead of vertical?
As others have pointed out, it's harder to have what the characters do grow in scope compared to the setting.


- What would have to be done to make a reasonable system with no advancement of any sort?
Design it like a wargame, with a focus on making singular encounters more various and interesting. Include mechanics for RP rewards/growth as an implicit part of the system. Make constantly customizing and tweaking abilities important, even if you're not taking on a net gain: you'd be swapping them out to degrees, or having only a few active at a time.


- How can the parts of a game that depends/is based around direct character advancements be fulfilled in other ways?
Use RP to give them the feeling of increasing importance. They might actually have been able to take on that dragon from the start, but nobody was going to ask because they weren't considered important. (Or, nobody's going to tell them how to secretly get into his lair, which is important if they don't want to be roasted alive.)




Again, I'm not sure what you're actually arguing anymore. The spoilered responses are a mix of 'I don't have a problem with X' (which as you've said in other points in the thread, you don't have a personal problem with advancement now?) and 'this can be done with X other system' (which I'm not sure is actually a subject of dispute at all). What exactly are you trying to argue?

- That the listed things are not advantages of advancement? (I would argue against this)
- That the advantages of advancement are not unique to it? (I would not argue against this but I think its kind of meaningless personally. Red and yellow are both colors, but that doesn't mean that 'we don't need red, we have yellow!')
- That fundamentally the alternate ways of implementing the benefits of advancement are somehow better? (this could be a concrete argument, but so far you've mostly argued that there are alternate ways)
- Something else?
A combination, although I'm deliberately trying to avoid use the word "better" since a lot of that's subjective. (When I do use it, I at least preface it with an adverb indicating subjectivity.)


It'd be far more productive to actually pick a concrete, reasonable question for debate and focus on that, rather than something where the answer is 'of course' but you're actually trying to argue something else under the table. Furthermore, its probably best not to pick a topic designed explicitly as an attack on a play style, but rather ask things in a way that encourages people to remain objective (if, that is, you want to actually explore the idea rather than just incite emotion).

How about we convert this thread into an exploration of how one could make a system based around the idea that the PCs nominally gain little power across a campaign, but instead "advance" by coming up with more effective solutions to problems?

Becoming more important would be done by RP, for instance: the PCs could start off fighting off some bandits in the woods. Next, they might be part of a convoy guard, and see off the captain of a bandit raid. (They can't kill all the bandits personally, they'd be overwhelmed by sheer numbers; but with the leader dead the bandits give up and run.) Later they seek out -and find- the bandit camp which had up 'til then been hidden from the authorities. Finally, they infiltrate the camp to kill the bandit leader and generally cause enough chaos that the bandits are too disorganized to regroup or relocate when the king's men come charging in. (Again, the PCs would be hopeless if they had to fight such superior numbers by themselves; but without them the bandits would be able to fend off attack long enough to find a new camp and slip away.)


Hm... Actually, a lot of the potential scenarios I can think of involve stealth of some kind. So, I guess that's the first thing we'd need mechanically? A stealth system that's friendly to characters who don't specialize in stealth?



The reason I was arguing an army isn't a reward is fairly simple: he was trying to convince me it would be a reward.
Actually, I wasn't. I was trying to make the point of a reward in general; I'd have to know you to give an example of a reward you'd like. :smallannoyed:


I view a reward as something with no strings attached that I get to choose how to use, anyway.
Well, you're going to be disappointed a lot then. The only thing which fits that description is total omnipotence, which actually turns out to be pretty boring most of the time. :smalltongue:



What "should" the basic rules for a fantasy RPG include?

Well, they should allow young people on their first adventure holding their own against goblins one-on-one.
They should allow experienced warriors able to take a larger force of goblins or orcs, or able to face ogres one-on-one.
They should allow greater warriors who could face dragons.
They should allow great warlords who control the armies of a barony, or a kingdom.

All of those are staples of fantasy literature; all of them are situations some of us like to play; all of them should be included in the basic game to get me to buy it.
This, I can agree with. What I am not convinced of is that level/power advancement as an implicit assumption is necessary for this. (It certainly isn't needed for the last of these, and might even get in the way of it.)


How about this novel approach:

Instead of changing the stats of the characters, you change the stats of everything else.

I mean, why not? The net effect is exactly the same, after all. You don't have to worry about one member of the party getting stronger than the others, and you can do lots of things the old system can't. :smallbiggrin:

(For instance, you could have goblins become less of a threat without making zombies or dragons any less scary, introduce any monster at any time or level without having to scale it, and you could still introduce party imbalances if you absolutely wanted to.)

Raineh Daze
2013-05-17, 01:43 PM
I don't know, sheer monetary reward comes a close second. It's not giving me a new job under a different name. :smallyuk:

Changing the stats of everything else so that a starting warrior can take on a monstrous beast raises the question 'why us?' You effectively remove the reason to have the party take on all these dangerous monsters when the most effective option is always, always going to be 'throw more militia at it'.

Your main argument for lateral advancement is that 'you have to RP things more!' There is essentially no point to having a system if the only way you're going to be able to solve any single problem is by roleplaying the solution. And the rewards. And every single other thing. That's not a system at all.

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 01:48 PM
I don't know, sheer monetary reward comes a close second. It's not giving me a new job under a different name. :smallyuk:
There are strings attached to how you can spend it. :smalltongue:
(It doesn't really matter though; rewards are relative.)


Changing the stats of everything else so that a starting warrior can take on a monstrous beast raises the question 'why us?' You effectively remove the reason to have the party take on all these dangerous monsters when the most effective option is always, always going to be 'throw more militia at it'.
"Everything else" includes the militia, doesn't it? :smallconfused:


Your main argument for lateral advancement is that 'you have to RP things more!' There is essentially no point to having a system if the only way you're going to be able to solve any single problem is by roleplaying the solution. And the rewards. And every single other thing. That's not a system at all.
It isn't? I thought roleplaying was the entire point of a roleplaying game... :smallwink:

(The rules are there to provide a framework to build upon.)

Raineh Daze
2013-05-17, 01:51 PM
"Everything else" includes the militia, doesn't it? :smallconfused:

If everything has constant, predictable statistics, within the area where one experienced warrior has a chance, you just need to get maybe a dozen longbowmen and a bunch of meatshields to deal with anything.


It isn't? I thought roleplaying was the entire point of a roleplaying game... :smallwink:

Very important part, here. You're advocating stripping out almost all the game elements now, basically turning it into 'guess the GM's mind'.

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 01:55 PM
If everything has constant, predictable statistics, within the area where one experienced warrior has a chance, you just need to get maybe a dozen longbowmen and a bunch of meatshields to deal with anything.
Welcome to pike-and-shot tactics 101. Next course is on the effective use of artillery, cavalry, maneuvering and supply interdiction. :smalltongue:

Really, I don't see where you're getting this problem.



Very important part, here. You're advocating stripping out almost all the game elements now, basically turning it into 'guess the GM's mind'.
Explain how? Over 90% of the rules are still intact. :smallconfused:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-17, 01:59 PM
Welcome to pike-and-shot tactics 101. Next course is on the effective use of artillery, cavalry, maneuvering and supply interdiction. :smalltongue:

Really, I don't see where you're getting this problem.

By making the challenges anything that can easily be solved with, effectively, starting characters and careful planning, you remove the need for adventurers and heroes. They can't really do anything so much more than normal people, so they're not needed, or likely to occur. Just throw more peasantry at it rather than trust the future of the to four or five people.

Playing a game about people that are nothing special from beginning to end does not go well with the escapism aspects of RPG's


Explain [I]how? Over 90% of the rules are still intact. :smallconfused:

By making enemies and obstacles harder than the players can take head on if they're more than basic humans, it either leads to 'orcs again?' or a series of puzzles with solutions almost entirely removed from the game system, because most of your abilities are going to be flat-out useless. Hence, most of the rules become of no use.

Jay R
2013-05-17, 02:09 PM
This, I can agree with. What I am not convinced of is that level/power advancement as an implicit assumption is necessary for this.

Why stop there? No aspect of role-playing is "necessary". But 40 years of role-playing experience shows that people enjoy playing games with advancement.

Not that it's "necessary".
Not that it's "better".
Merely that people enjoy it.


How about this novel approach:

Instead of changing the stats of the characters, you change the stats of everything else...

If you want such a game, write it and run it. If your group enjoys it, then that proves the concept is workable and desirable.

Similarly, the last forty years shows that leveling up is workable and desirable. People play it and love it.

The final and definite defense of leveling up as a concept is that it's been used for forty years and we're still buying and playing games that use it. There is no issue on whether such a game is worth having. If you wish to propose a different kind of game, it serves no purpose to argue against this one; you have to argue for the kind you want.

And the only final and definite defense of the kind of game you want will be people playing it and loving it.

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 02:10 PM
By making the challenges anything that can easily be solved with, effectively, starting characters and careful planning, you remove the need for adventurers and heroes. They can't really do anything so much more than normal people, so they're not needed.

Playing a game about people that are nothing special from beginning to end does not go well with the escapism aspects of RPG's

I don't understand what you're talking about. How is what I suggested making the PCs any less special? :smallconfused:



By making enemies and obstacles harder than the players can take head on if they're more than basic humans, it either leads to 'orcs again?' or a series of puzzles with solutions almost entirely removed from the game system, because most of your abilities are going to be flat-out useless. Hence, most of the rules become of no use.

People play chess all the time. An RPG is much more intricate than chess, and there's a lot more variety. The only reason it wouldn't be able to stay fresh is if the GM runs out of ideas. :smalltongue:

Also, where are you getting "flat-out useless" from? :smallconfused:

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 02:11 PM
If you want such a game, write it and run it.

Would you like to post some ideas? :smalltongue:

WhatBigTeeth
2013-05-17, 02:13 PM
By making the challenges anything that can easily be solved with, effectively, starting characters and careful planning, you remove the need for adventurers and heroes. They can't really do anything so much more than normal people, so they're not needed, or likely to occur. Just through more peasantry at it than trust the future of the [Insert Thing Here] to four or five people.
You are aware that there exist fictional heroes who don't wear their underpants on the outside?

JellyPooga
2013-05-17, 02:38 PM
There is essentially no point to having a system if the only way you're going to be able to solve any single problem is by roleplaying the solution. And the rewards. And every single other thing. That's not a system at all.

As far as I understand it (I say this because I've yet to actually use the system), this is exactly the way Wushu works.

PC's gain no mechanical advancement at all. Between adventures, you may change the name (and thus the associated things you can do with them) of your abilities; e.g. you could exchange your "Squire to the King" ability for "Knight of the Realm", but the mechanical value of it would be no different. Importance within the setting improved? Yup. Combat prowess improved? Yup. Social standing and expectations different? Yup. Does that make it necessary to change the dice you're rolling? No. Why not? Because the challenges of a Squire to the King are child-play to the Knight of the Realm. The relative difficulty of the challenge has changed, so why not change the numbers of the challenge instead of those of the character? It really makes no odds whichever way round you do it.

In Wushu, a more difficult challenge is denoted almost solely by "what the DM says" and how well you, as players, decide to utilise your abilities in the circumstances. The world or creatures don't need to change to make a difference, only the scenario. It's the scenario that determines the difficulty, not the stats. Does it, then, mean anything to tell me that a Goblin is such-and-such-a-challenge because he's got weak stats, whilst a Dragon is more-of-a-challenge because he's got stronger ones? No, because the dragon is not a challenge at all if killed in his sleep (for example).

The numbers in pretty much every RPG I've seen, mean very little. I have found the following statements to usually be true [bear with me on this one, it goes somewhere!]

-Typically speaking, the abilities characters gain (whether through "levelling-up" or gaining "bonus points" or whatever) are abilities being provided by the writer of the game as a substitute for the players having to make it up themselves. Many people like being given a list of abilities they can choose from.
-Working that list into a complex "level system" or any other method of advancement is one way of providing that list.
-If there's a list and an advancement system, then there's probably a grading system as well (ability A is better than ability B).
-It's also likely that having more abilities from that list is better than having less of them.
-Any numbers you attach to these abilities mean only as much as the system tells you. The numbers, then, are the only important bit as far as game balance is concerned.
-Number ratios determine the difficulty of a given scenario. Bigger numbers generally does not mean a bigger ratio.
-The possibilities of the imagination are infinitely greater than any possible list a game writer could provide. Thus no list could cater for all possibilities.
-If the above statements are true, then a Better system would be to devise a system of numbers, independent of lists and let the imagination fill in the details. The Best system would remove the need for numbers at all.

Wushu is a Better system (and not the only one of its kind).

Rhynn
2013-05-17, 02:40 PM
Geordnet, I take it you've basically conceded most of your new points?


I feel the need to clarify my current opinions:


I am not arguing about people getting better in real life, just how this should be reflected in game.
It's not advancement in general I'm opposed to: it's automatic 'vertical' advancement.

If there's a story reason to advance, by all means advance! If the story calls for you to be fighting "stronger" opponents, and for your prior foes to seem weaker, then that they should! It's only gaining power as an implicit assumption that I have a problem with.

Gaining new abilities depends on the power of the ability: going from a safecracker to a safecracker and a con man could be okay when learning to breathe fire or regenerate wouldn't.


Thank you, this is good. Helps focus the discussion to know what we've covered and where you stand now.

One question, though: you're back to having the opinion that advancement is bad? I thought you said you were playing Devil's advocate?





It's more of a fundamental thing; that in general 3:2 is not really different from 99:66. I'm just trying to say not to automatically assume "more = better".

But it doesn't matter if it's not automatically. Obviously, if all the numbers rise in the same proportion, then there's no real change.

But that is a case you've made up. It may be true, but it's usually not, even in 3.X, and it's far less true in many other games. (In 4E, it seems to be the freaking rules, but that's a system problem, not a problem with advancement.)

Basically, you can't argue against a general idea (advancement) with specific unusual cases within a specific system. "Someone could conceivably have problem X with it" isn't a very good argument for thrashing a whole system.

Your assumption that challenges do, and the opinion you expressed in your first post that they should, increase with character ability, is false. It's just not the case in all, or even most, RPGs. In RuneQuest and HârnMaster and many, many other RPGs, your real chance of success increases as your skills increase.

So this is an argument against a specific case within a specific system. It is not a valid argument against advancement (vertical or not), or even against leveling and XP.



This was one of the points I made on faulty assumptions; I was thinking more of grinding from MMOs. (Actually, it was talk about XP gain in general on that "grinding" thread that inspired me to start this one...)

Cool, okay, so you agree it was an invalid argument.



Right, I was sort of going off here, and seeing a problem where there wasn't one. I didn't need to write this section at all. :smalltongue:

Ah, okay. Others seem to have made something of it, but I really couldn't. Seems it was just a problem in my parsing.


Yeah, this and a few other points stemmed from me assuming other RPGs suffered from certain problems that are mainly just D&D's.

Well, the problems you outline are possible in D&D, but not automatic or necessary, and maybe not even common. That suggests they're poor arguments.


Simple: you do it through RP. (Which includes "RP advancement".) The goblins were weak from the beginning, but still threats; the dragon will never cease to be extremely dangerous, but is not invincible.

So you're saying that instead of having numbers for my skills/abilities increase, I should RP that my character has improved?

So you're saying that games should not have mechanics, basically?

Why should a game have mechanics for resolving combat but not for advancement? They have the same purpose: to resolve arguments, to create shared rules and expectations, to offer ways to simulate things, even to offer things to do. (Yes, advancement mechanics do and should tell players what they should be doing in the game; when designers don't realize this, there are problems, but that's not a problem with advancement mechanics.)


Perhaps it is due to my greater exposure to historical wargames that I'm more familiar with how deceptive the notion of "raw power" is. When I play against my dad (whom is an ex-army officer), I make one false step and I've lost. Of course, the opposite is true as well. But it's always the little details that get you: the slimmest of margins and the humblest of instruments. "The harder they fall", indeed. :smallamused:

I'm sorry, this must be a problem with my parsing again, but this looks like a non-sequitur.

How does "you can use tactics" relate to "there shouldn't be advancement" ?

If you tried to fight enemies in Rolemaster/MERP or HârnMaster or Cyberpunk 2020 or Shadowrun or RuneQuest or Aces & Eights (all games with "vertical" advancement) without using tactics, you'd end up dead very soon.


First, I would argue that having a change in how your players relate to the setting is optional. Desirable to many, sure; but optional.

Sure. And the option most games choose is to make it possible. It's always preferrable to make things possible, rather than make them impossible. It's easier not to use a printed rule than it is to provide a rule to people without printing it (?!?!), or in an external supplement. "Completeness" is a pretty good standard for rules. (This doesn't mean "rules for everything," it means "all the right rules.")


Secondly, relation to the setting does not require becoming more powerful. Again, I'm going to use Frodo as an example here. The relationship to the setting is primarily RP-based, and in fact level advancement might even act as a crutch for coming up with better stories in some cases (but that's just speculation).[/QUOTE

Sure, it doesn't require it. But again, this is not an argument against advancement at all. "You don't need it" is not very persuasive, you know? Hey, you don't need rules for combat, either. You don't, in fact, need any rules at all. But an argument against advancement has to show there's something wrong with advancement.

Also, you keep talking about "coming up with stories." That's not what I and many, many other people want to do. If I want to come up with stories, I can write. Or I can play without rules.

I want rules to give me random tools that help create stories I don't come up with. That's what I like about being both a player and a GM - that I don't know what the story is going to be ahead of time. It'd be kind of boring if I did. I want to see rules and randomization and player's choices and my reactions to those choices create stories I never saw coming! That's magic.

This is not facilitated by a lack of rules (that I'd then need to invent - and why would I buy a RPG I need to invent rules for?), whereas your approach of coming up with stories from whole cloth is not hindered by the existence of rules you can ignore.

[QUOTE=Geordnet;15254654]You don't need to kill the army of invaders all by yourself, you just need to bring the warning to the king. You don't need to be powerful enough to destroy the giant golem with brute force, you just need to find its weak spot. Sometimes you don't even need to stop the unstoppable foe, you just need to hold them off long enough for the civilians to evacuate! It can be done, perhaps better, in RP.

Right, you don't need to, but these still aren't arguments for what's wrong with advancement. You're providing reasons for why it may be unnecessary, but there are arguments for why it is useful, and obviously they largely win out. (Again, not always - there are RPGs with almost negligible advancement, for various reasons, like Paranoia or Traveller.)

And games where those things are done are exactly as valid as games where they aren't. Games where you develop from being unable to do those things to being able to do them have nothing wrong with them - or you haven't made a persuasive case that they do, so far.


Not necessarily: that's only true if you tackle both problems with a head-on attack. You could be powerful enough to easily slaughter a goblin, and a dragon powerful enough that it would easily roast you alive or prove death from above in the open, but both can easily be appropriate challenges.

Of course not necessarily, but again, it's a valid option. Your original arguments against that sort of game were overturned, right?

There are plenty of RPGs (with advancement rules) where head-on attacks are a bad idea in general. RuneQuest. HârnMaster. Cyberpunk 2020. Twilight 2000. The Riddle of Steel. Old editions of Dungeons & Dragons! In fact, there are almost certainly far more of these than there are games like D&D 3E/4E.


What do you do to stop a goblin from murdering people in the dark of night? Poisoning the well? Causing sickness and crop blight? Even if the party has a constant watch on their own stuff, they'll fail in their quest if they can't protect others -and they can't be everywhere.

How is this arguing against advancement? This is completely irrelevant to whether a system has advancement.


And on the other end of the spectrum, if frontally attacking a dragon is suicide there are always other ways. Sneak into the dragon's lair, where the confined space robs him of his flight advantage. Take him while he's sleeping after a meal, so he's bloated and groggy. Get a magic charm from the witch-woman in the woods to ward off dragon fire. Collapse the cave down on top of him. Recover the magic sword Tailbiter. Challenge him to a game of riddles.

All of that can be - and is! - done in games with advancement. This isn't even close to forwarding your argument.


It is very much possible to have a wide variety of challenges and impacts on the setting without ever having crude advancement of power, at least not in basic mechanical terms.

All you've argued so far is, basically, "there are challenges not dependent on advancement." Great. But there are ones that are, and other reasons for advancement besides. Your case is looking pretty weak.


For the record: although it's possible to do it without any advancement at all, I agree that gets rather stale quickly. I'd think the best method would be a mainly lateral-advancement system, with just a little vertical advancement. Just barely enough for it to be noticable, though.

This has problems with it, but hey, sure, outline how such a system might work. I take it you mean, basically, adding more skills to character sheets rather than getting better at anything? If you explain it understandably, I and others can probably tell you if some such system already exists.


Use RP to give them the feeling of increasing importance. They might actually have been able to take on that dragon from the start, but nobody was going to ask because they weren't considered important. (Or, nobody's going to tell them how to secretly get into his lair, which is important if they don't want to be roasted alive.)

So basically an illusion. What if they tried to take the dragon on at the start? This sounds like it would only work in a fairly linear, closed world, and certainly not in an open sandbox world directed by player choices. Meanwhile, traditional advancement works in both.


How about we convert this thread into an exploration of how one could make a system based around the idea that the PCs nominally gain little power across a campaign, but instead "advance" by coming up with more effective solutions to problems?

:smallbiggrin: People are still replying to your original post. At this point, it's going to be impossible to "redirect" the thread.


Becoming more important would be done by RP, for instance: the PCs could start off fighting off some bandits in the woods. Next, they might be part of a convoy guard, and see off the captain of a bandit raid. (They can't kill all the bandits personally, they'd be overwhelmed by sheer numbers; but with the leader dead the bandits give up and run.) Later they seek out -and find- the bandit camp which had up 'til then been hidden from the authorities. Finally, they infiltrate the camp to kill the bandit leader and generally cause enough chaos that the bandits are too disorganized to regroup or relocate when the king's men come charging in. (Again, the PCs would be hopeless if they had to fight such superior numbers by themselves; but without them the bandits would be able to fend off attack long enough to find a new camp and slip away.)

This sounds, again, very linear. Advancement allows you to make a setting (small or large) and unleash the PCs on it - the traditional, old-school way. If the players are choosing their own goals, this just doesn't work.

I'm not saying it is a necessity for PCs to be unable to take on great challenges right from the start - that's not even true of most RPGs I know, like HârnMaster, Pendragon, etc. - but advancement allows them to become more able to do it, in a sensible, fiat-free way.


Hm... Actually, a lot of the potential scenarios I can think of involve stealth of some kind. So, I guess that's the first thing we'd need mechanically? A stealth system that's friendly to characters who don't specialize in stealth?

Plenty of games like that. Most don't need a "stealth system," in fact, it's just a simple skill vs. skill deal. Others don't even need that (OD&D).


This, I can agree with. What I am not convinced of is that level/power advancement as an implicit assumption is necessary for this.

Basically all RPGs explicitly address advancement and make decisions about it. How is it implicit?


How about this novel approach:

Instead of changing the stats of the characters, you change the stats of everything else.

I mean, why not? The net effect is exactly the same, after all. You don't have to worry about one member of the party getting stronger than the others, and you can do lots of things the old system can't. :smallbiggrin:

(For instance, you could have goblins become less of a threat without making zombies or dragons any less scary, introduce any monster at any time or level without having to scale it, and you could still introduce party imbalances if you absolutely wanted to.)

So instead of changing a few PCs through some kind of organic process, you change everything else? Can you give any kind of example, with numbers etc., of how this would work and make sense?

Quantum challenges like you keep talking about are pretty boring to me, frankly. I - and countless others, obviously! - like verisimilitude and an organic setting, where the PCs get better at doing things, more likely to survive doing specific dangerous things, and drive themselves to greater challenges as a result.

snoopy13a
2013-05-17, 02:49 PM
By making the challenges anything that can easily be solved with, effectively, starting characters and careful planning, you remove the need for adventurers and heroes. They can't really do anything so much more than normal people, so they're not needed, or likely to occur. Just throw more peasantry at it rather than trust the future of the [Insert Thing Here] to four or five people.

Playing a game about people that are nothing special from beginning to end does not go well with the escapism aspects of RPG's



Generally speaking, games with either no leveling or slow leveling tend to have starting characters that are above-average and powerful to begin with. They really do not have to gain in power to become influential. Granted, they don't get much better as the game progresses.

Think of it as a Han Solo versus Luke Skywalker dynamic. Luke represents a leveling based character that starts as a farm boy and, by the end of the movies, becomes a Jedi Knight. A rather stark power differential. Solo, on the other hand, represents a more skill-based system with slow power creep. Over the movies, it is unclear whether he becomes more powerful.

Thus, it is more of a gaming philosophy than anything else. Some players like systems where their players start off great but do not improve much, or at all. Others like systems where players start off weak but improve greatly. Some want to start off as Luke while others want to start off as Han.

Finally, not all players need their characters to be special. Some players are happy with their characters simply being cogs in the machine. The escapism for these players comes into play through the alternative universe, for example a science fiction setting, where the game exists. Of course, this is why there are so many different RPGs with different rule sets and philosophies. Games aren't uniform because players have different goals and expectations.

Rhynn
2013-05-17, 02:52 PM
Not that it's "necessary".
Not that it's "better".
Merely that people enjoy it.

Seriously this.

There have been RPGs with no numerical ability advancement. Traveller has advancement so tiny, so difficult, so time-consuming, and so not worth it that it might as well not exist. (You can learn new skills by taking a hugely expensive months-long correspondence course, or something like that.)

But advancement systems proliferate, after 40 years. Because they're more popular. Current RPGs don't exist in some sort of void.

There are no real disadvantages inherent to games with advancement systems, and a lot they can do that people want. Thus, people like them better.

And incidentally, from JellyPooga's description, Wushu has exactly the kind of systems Geordnet is talking about. So exactly that has been done, and it's sort of a fringe system. (Certainly I've heard of it many times, but the game itself is not hugely popular, and the approach is not very common.)


-Number ratios determine the difficulty of a given scenario. Bigger numbers generally does not mean a bigger ratio.

Again, this is not any kind of general truth, though. Many RPGs use internal target numbers, where your ability/skill directly sets your chance of success by itself. Many systems do not use "increasing challenges," so the ratios do change. The whole point of becoming highly skilled is that you can go Matrix on the mooks' asses, or kick butt like Brad Pitt's Achilles. Just because all challenges do not increase in numbers doesn't mean the game gets boring or easy. (Indeed, Geordnet's own arguments go against this.)

Raineh Daze
2013-05-17, 03:02 PM
I think I'm going to stop here before I get even more confused with what is meant by 'roleplaying' in this context. :smallsigh:

Side note: Wushu sounds like the weird in-between state where I'd just sort of stare at it in confusion, because I'd rather have no system or things in the system mechanically changing. Either's fun, the middle just sounds weird to me.

JellyPooga
2013-05-17, 03:06 PM
Again, this is not any kind of general truth, though. Many RPGs use internal target numbers, where your ability/skill directly sets your chance of success by itself. Many systems do not use "increasing challenges," so the ratios do change. The whole point of becoming highly skilled is that you can go Matrix on the mooks' asses, or kick butt like Brad Pitt's Achilles. Just because all challenges do not increase in numbers doesn't mean the game gets boring or easy. (Indeed, Geordnet's own arguments go against this.)

I'll concede that point. There is a tendency, though, for challenges to rise in conjunction with the PC's "level" (or whatever else you want to call it), such that you're really only looking at similar ratios to earlier "levels". Sure Achilles can kick the butt of Trojan-Mook-312, but he's really only challenged by Hector. The result of the former conflict is a forgone conclusion, so why even bother rolling the dice? The interesting bit is when he fights the Boss. Wushu (to return to it) actually address both kinds of 'challenge' (mook and boss). The other interesting thing about Wushu is that as a PC, everything you say your character does, happens. How this impacts the outcome of the scenario is what you roll the dice for, not whether you succeed at doing what you say. It's an interesting system.

Waar
2013-05-17, 03:10 PM
Well, that is definitively true. However, i guess that can easily be refluffed if you treat HP as "Luck of the hero" that runs out instead of actual physical health, right?
Or maybe, it can always be assumed that a warrior that has took several arrows over the years learns, or even gain a reflex, to position himself to take the arrow in such a way that it doesnt damage him as badly (yeah, low on realism, but i guess it can be considered).

I do not have a problem with it myself, but one of my players did so i was considering it a potentiall reason. I have however experienced the difficulty of explaining the HP=/=Health position when the counterargument is look at this Arrow/bullet/whatever it can not kill this character (when fired by mook #473)
Additionally i have found it easier to GM when i know whether an attack could kill one of my players or not, which is an advantage with a level based system :smallsmile:

Ozfer
2013-05-17, 03:32 PM
Is it possible this is just an example of masterful trolling?

Mordar
2013-05-17, 04:13 PM
Is it possible this is just an example of masterful trolling?

I had a friend once (really, I did!) who was pretty bright...he was an anthropologist - and might still be - with whom I played a number of RPGs and, more saliently, Warhammer FB/40k. Pretty smart guy in general.

He absolutely refused to "get" that if you have a 3 in 6 chance to dispel a magic spell, and you get to try that roll twice, you should dispel about 75% of the enemy spells over time. If you got to roll it once, he was good on the 50% success expectation, but failed to make the leap to two rolls giving the 75% success rate.

We would "discuss" it time and time again. To this date, I still don't know if he was "trolling" or just didn't buy the idea.

I think the OP had a position that he believed from the beginning, but that over time it has been changed (as he admitted) but doesn't want to walk away from the discussion, if for no other reason that he has engaged people and has generated a 5+ page thread.

Then again, maybe not :smallamused:

- M

Rhynn
2013-05-17, 04:16 PM
I'll concede that point. There is a tendency, though, for challenges to rise in conjunction with the PC's "level" (or whatever else you want to call it), such that you're really only looking at similar ratios to earlier "levels". Sure Achilles can kick the butt of Trojan-Mook-312, but he's really only challenged by Hector. The result of the former conflict is a forgone conclusion, so why even bother rolling the dice? The interesting bit is when he fights the Boss. Wushu (to return to it) actually address both kinds of 'challenge' (mook and boss).

Sure, but in many RPGs (most of the ones I listed) it isn't a foregone conclusion.

For instance, in Aces & Eights, if you're playing an experienced gunslinger with good ability scores, you are very likely to win one-on-one gunfights you get into, but you might not. These are usually systems that emphasize verisimilitude and lends themselves well to sandboxes, where PCs have no guarantee of not getting killed by a mook. High skills and abilities that have gone up with experience make a huge, real difference in your ability to take on challenges and your odds of continued survival in such games.

Honestly, it's almost weird to have to explain this, because this is such a basic and common thing for me. Not only is this true in most systems I play, it's even true in the (old edition) D&D campaigns I play. Those orcs over there aren't going to stop existing just because the PCs level up a lot, and they're not going to cease presenting any danger, either - but they will be less dangerous.


The other interesting thing about Wushu is that as a PC, everything you say your character does, happens. How this impacts the outcome of the scenario is what you roll the dice for, not whether you succeed at doing what you say. It's an interesting system.

I've always thought it sounded pretty dang interesting. I mean, it's the game of wuxia and Hong Kong action movies, right? Where you run on bullets to kick a hopping vampire in the face, etc. I've never even read the books, but I've heard about the game for years. It sounds very interesting, but I've never looked into it because my players really aren't into rules-light or story-telling base games. (We are the anti-Forge!)

Edit: My bad, I was thinking of Feng Shui. I will try to look into Wushu! /Edit


Is it possible this is just an example of masterful trolling?

If you think the OP is trolling, report it to the mods. This doesn't really add anything to the discussion, does it?

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 04:46 PM
One question, though: you're back to having the opinion that advancement is bad? I thought you said you were playing Devil's advocate?
When I was arguing the extreme of my point of view, I was. :smalltongue:



But it doesn't matter if it's not automatically. Obviously, if all the numbers rise in the same proportion, then there's no real change.
That's all I was trying to say there; nothing more.



So you're saying that instead of having numbers for my skills/abilities increase, I should RP that my character has improved?
I'm saying that you don't need to have your character improve mechanically to go from fighting 3' goblins to 100' dragons, if the system is designed right.



How does "you can use tactics" relate to "there shouldn't be advancement" ?
It doesn't. It relates to "there doesn't need to be advancement to combat a wide range of enemies". In this case, I was alluding to the fact that possibly the greatest threat to a tank is a common foot soldier with an AT weapon. :smallamused:



Sure. And the option most games choose is to make it possible.
Never said it wouldn't be, just that they don't need to be part of the "core" of the game. By which I mean you'd optimize the rules assuming no advancement, then write the advancement rules as an addendum (sort of like an internal supplement).



But an argument against advancement has to show there's something wrong with advancement.
I'm not trying to try to prove that advancement is wrong at this point, I'm trying to prove that it isn't necessary for most RPG activities. :smalltongue:


Also, you keep talking about "coming up with stories." That's not what I and many, many other people want to do. If I want to come up with stories, I can write. Or I can play without rules.
Well, you can do whatever you like.


I want rules to give me random tools that help create stories I don't come up with. That's what I like about being both a player and a GM - that I don't know what the story is going to be ahead of time. It'd be kind of boring if I did. I want to see rules and randomization and player's choices and my reactions to those choices create stories I never saw coming! That's magic.
And I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't do exactly this. :smalltongue:


This is not facilitated by a lack of rules (that I'd then need to invent - and why would I buy a RPG I need to invent rules for?), whereas your approach of coming up with stories from whole cloth is not hindered by the existence of rules you can ignore.
It doesn't help if the rest of those rules are optimized with the parts I don't want in mind.


How is this arguing against advancement? This is completely irrelevant to whether a system has advancement.
Exactly. :smallwink:



All of that can be - and is! - done in games with advancement. This isn't even close to forwarding your argument.
It's not the fact that they can be done that's important, it's that advancement isn't needed to do them.



All you've argued so far is, basically, "there are challenges not dependent on advancement." Great. But there are ones that are, and other reasons for advancement besides. Your case is looking pretty weak.
If you want to play a challenge dependent on advancement, then by all means play a system with advancement. I'm not saying that advancement doesn't have it's place, just that it has seeped into spots it doesn't need to be in. And I don't think any feature should be implicit and assumed if it isn't a necessary one.



This has problems with it, but hey, sure, outline how such a system might work.
I'm not entirely certain myself; although I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone's already done it.



So basically an illusion. What if they tried to take the dragon on at the start?
Assuming they know about the dragon, where would they start? Knock on it's door and ask it for tea? How do you think that would work out? :smalltongue:

But I do believe that becoming "more important" in the game world is mostly an illusion anyways, since the game wouldn't continue if there wasn't always a bigger threat.


This sounds like it would only work in a fairly linear, closed world, and certainly not in an open sandbox world directed by player choices. Meanwhile, traditional advancement works in both.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Traditional advancement has problems with sandboxes too, since you're essentially saying "you're free to go kill yourself by trying to take on something too strong for you". This system would be more like "feel free to take on the crazy-difficult (and intentionally lethal) encounter without learning enough about it to figure out a good strategy". I could actually see the latter being more fun, because the players would know they theoretically could take on any encounter they come across, without having to worry about stumbling onto something too powerful for them.



:smallbiggrin: People are still replying to your original post. At this point, it's going to be impossible to "redirect" the thread.
Even were I to edit the OP? :smallconfused::smallamused:



This sounds, again, very linear. Advancement allows you to make a setting (small or large) and unleash the PCs on it - the traditional, old-school way. If the players are choosing their own goals, this just doesn't work.
That's just an example. For instance, assuming the PCs are ambushed in the first encounter, they could still choose what to do next. They could track the bandits back to their camp, and try to assassinate their leader then; they might actually succeed but they wouldn't have ended the bandit threat yet. The bandits might later move to a spot under a cliff, which then gives the PCs the chance to finish them off for good.

Basically, the idea is that the "right spot" for the PCs to apply their limited push doesn't immediately appear: instead the PCs have opportunities to do increasingly important things with their abilities. The PCs are the right person from the start, but things have to build up to the right time. :smallwink:



Basically all RPGs explicitly address advancement and make decisions about it. How is it implicit?
It's an implicit assumption that they have it, though; even before you read the rules. :smallyuk:



So instead of changing a few PCs through some kind of organic process, you change everything else? Can you give any kind of example, with numbers etc., of how this would work and make sense?

Well, I'll try:
Suppose we have a very simple system, in which everything has just two numbers: damage and HP. An attack just reduces your target's HP by your damage.

So, the PCs would have 100 points to split between damage and HP. Always*. Regardless of whether they're a peasant child or Hercules himself.
*Unless you want both Hercules and the peasant child in the same party, in which case one would get 100 points and the other would get more/less to scale.

But a monster, for instance an orc, would have multiple stat blocks ranked by "relative challenge" value. These could go from a wimpy 1 damage / 1 hp to a terrifying 100 damage /100 hp. The difference is that the former stat block would be used for the orcs the "Hercules" character fights, while the latter would be used for those the "peasant child" encounters. The latter stat block would probably see double-use for something Hercules would be afraid of, too; just like the former would be reused for insects against the child. (For Hercules, of course, insects are unworthy of a stat block, and likewise the child doesn't need stats for whatever Hercules is afraid of.)

Popular creatures would probably see many stat blocks for minor variations in relative challenge level, while other creatures might get two or three. The GM chooses which to use when designing dungeons. (Dungeons themselves might actually have mooks which are just stat blocks and nothing else, leaving it up to the GM to figure out the most appropriate foe.)

There would probably be guidelines (but not hard rules) for how the GM should gradually shift from the harder to the easier stat blocks for a given monster.


Of course it'd actually be more complex than this, but that's the gist of the idea. For practicality's sake, there probably would have to be some stat increases for the players, but it would be minimized.



Quantum challenges like you keep talking about are pretty boring to me, frankly. I - and countless others, obviously! - like verisimilitude and an organic setting, where the PCs get better at doing things, more likely to survive doing specific dangerous things, and drive themselves to greater challenges as a result.

You aren't really tackling greater challenges, though. Unless you tell my your odds of dying at level 20 are greater than at level 10, then that doesn't sound like your challenges are really getting harder at all. :smallyuk:



I think the OP had a position that he believed from the beginning, but that over time it has been changed (as he admitted) but doesn't want to walk away from the discussion, if for no other reason that he has engaged people and has generated a 5+ page thread.

Then again, maybe not :smallamused:

It's closer than you think. :smalltongue:

I'm not trolling, at least not intentionally; I just like the discussion (so long as it remains civil, at least).

Raineh Daze
2013-05-17, 04:49 PM
It doesn't. It relates to "there doesn't need to be advancement to combat a wide range of enemies". In this case, I was alluding to the fact that possibly the greatest threat to a tank is a common foot soldier with an AT weapon. :smallamused:

Tsar Bomba. Direct hit. :smalltongue:

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 04:51 PM
Tsar Bomba. Direct hit. :smalltongue:

I was thinking more of a Panzerfaust. :smalltongue:


You could at least use a Neutron Bomb, for more precision and less need of accuracy. (Cold war era tanks were actually designed to fight in nuclear fallout, even. :smallwink:)

NichG
2013-05-17, 04:52 PM
Geordnet, from your responses to 'how to design a system', I'm definitely seeing things inspired by your war-gaming background in play. If you desire gameplay that is similar to war-gaming, that makes a lot of sense of course.

The issue with increasing the amount of that kind of strategy/tactics in a tabletop game is simply, few players will actually rise to the challenge. A larger set of players can be encouraged to rise to the challenge, but will feel 'stressed' by game as a result. This is something I've seen a lot when presenting scenarios that pit the PCs against a much stronger/more prevalent/etc enemy, but which have weaknesses designed into the scenario that could be exploited (perhaps at a cost or tradeoff). Some players will spot the weaknesses and try to use them, or consider a tradeoff to be fair game, and will basically succeed through that. Others will basically try to stop the first players from proceeding with arguments of 'I don't think that will work' or 'can we find a way to do it without that cost?'.

Its like the consumables problem. There's a common habit in which a player will hoard consumables until they become moot, rather than using them when they're most efficient or useful, because they have no reasonable expectation of whether or not they'll need them in the future, or even have a chance to replenish them.

The nice thing about advancement systems in this case is, if an enemy is too challenging to take on now (for the players' level of skill), the party can go off and do other things and get stronger, then take out that enemy more easily and with less out of character stress. This is perhaps again a difference in the campaign/oneshot structure. In a campaign, you aren't going to have enough TPKs that you 'get used to it'. If the DM wants a campaign with setbacks, they must figure out a way to deliver setbacks that don't end the campaign or end the players' enthusiasm for the campaign. In a oneshot, it can end in a TPK without being nearly as unsatisfying or destructive (though if one's only experiences as a new player are TPK after TPK, its unlikely they'd keep playing). This must be considered alongside the fact that there are strong reasons to want to play a campaign-style game that will trump this (questionable) downside.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-17, 04:54 PM
Also, this:


And I don't think any feature should be implicit and assumed if it isn't a necessary one.

Pretty much the entire concept is unnecessary to the goal of 'telling stories with a character, some other people, and having fun'. What you're arguing against is simply a non-universal convention now. :smallconfused:

Also, I still think destroying the tank and pretty much anything nearby is the biggest threat to it, rather than something that only damages its crew. :smalltongue:


You aren't really tackling greater challenges, though. Unless you tell my your odds of dying at level 20 are greater than at level 10, then that doesn't sound like your challenges are really getting harder at all. :smallyuk:

Okay, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the concept: your challenges are greater because your foes or their traps are more powerful. Not because you, yourself, are in more danger. Making you more likely to die and fail miserably as you progress is a good way to annoy players because they've had longer to grow attached to the characters and story.

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 05:07 PM
Geordnet, from your responses to 'how to design a system', I'm definitely seeing things inspired by your war-gaming background in play. If you desire gameplay that is similar to war-gaming, that makes a lot of sense of course.

That's certainly true; for instance, it seems to me that most encounters are fought at ridiculously short distances. In any case, would anyone have advice for me about which RPGs are built more like a wargame?



The issue with increasing the amount of that kind of strategy/tactics in a tabletop game is simply, few players will actually rise to the challenge.

That's sadly true... :smallfrown:



The nice thing about advancement systems in this case is, if an enemy is too challenging to take on now (for the players' level of skill), the party can go off and do other things and get stronger, then take out that enemy more easily and with less out of character stress.

Well, in this system it's up to the GM to notice and cut them a break, scale things down a little. :smallwink:



This must be considered alongside the fact that there are strong reasons to want to play a campaign-style game that will trump this (questionable) downside.

I suppose so. I guess it may have something to do with my like of NetHack, too.



Also, I still think destroying the tank and pretty much anything nearby is the biggest threat to it, rather than something that only damages its crew. :smalltongue:

Not if that thing is so ridiculously powerful it does as much damage to the army that uses it. :smallwink:

(Oh, and the odds of it being used, how many such weapons exist, and what the weapon was designed to be used against are important too. Neutron Bombs can kill the crew through the armor, easily; similar how molotov cocktails are good anti-tank weapons because they bake the crew alive.)

jindra34
2013-05-17, 05:28 PM
A few things to consider Geordnet:
1. If player advancement is done wholly by roleplay, and the DM/Gm adjucates challenges based up on how they feel they should handle them, then if a party encounters something powerful, how exactly is the DM/GM supposed to convey the relative power through out the fight?
2. Again similar situation: What do the stats on the players sheets (be they numbers or words) actually represent? And if they don't represent anything solidly, why include them? And if you don't have numbers on either side (if your not including them for the PCs you probably aren't for NPCs) then encounters, challenges and everything else with a die involved devolves solely to DM/GM fiat. At which point: Why pay for the rules?
3.Not every system/genre/style of game can have solving problems through gaining proper gear. How would you advise dealing with problems then?

Also older DandD is about as close as you will get to wargaming in a PnP RPG. Simply because the types of thought involved in each produce rules that don't work well together. Or are insanely convoluted.

snoopy13a
2013-05-17, 05:56 PM
I had a friend once (really, I did!) who was pretty bright...he was an anthropologist - and might still be - with whom I played a number of RPGs and, more saliently, Warhammer FB/40k. Pretty smart guy in general.

He absolutely refused to "get" that if you have a 3 in 6 chance to dispel a magic spell, and you get to try that roll twice, you should dispel about 75% of the enemy spells over time. If you got to roll it once, he was good on the 50% success expectation, but failed to make the leap to two rolls giving the 75% success rate.



Instead of Warhammer, you should have been playing poker with this friend.

Just to Browse
2013-05-17, 06:04 PM
Xiaolin Showdown is a great example of advancement without XP/leveling. The characters get new toys every 2-3 episodes and then get big power jumps at important plot points.

So it's totally not necessary. TV shows do it all the time.

PersonMan
2013-05-17, 06:49 PM
Xiaolin Showdown is a great example of advancement without XP/leveling. The characters get new toys every 2-3 episodes and then get big power jumps at important plot points.

So it's totally not necessary. TV shows do it all the time.

It's also episodic, with a "monster/threat of the week" structure.

(Also, if you time your XP/rewards right you can make it so that the PCs gain important new loot every 2-3 sessions and always level at important plot points, so this isn't necessarily a result of using a different system.)

Geordnet
2013-05-17, 07:31 PM
A few things to consider Geordnet:
1. If player advancement is done wholly by roleplay, and the DM/Gm adjucates challenges based up on how they feel they should handle them, then if a party encounters something powerful, how exactly is the DM/GM supposed to convey the relative power through out the fight?
By using a very high relative challenge stat block.

Or did you mean something more than that? :smallconfused:


2. Again similar situation: What do the stats on the players sheets (be they numbers or words) actually represent? And if they don't represent anything solidly, why include them? And if you don't have numbers on either side (if your not including them for the PCs you probably aren't for NPCs) then encounters, challenges and everything else with a die involved devolves solely to DM/GM fiat. At which point: Why pay for the rules?
The numbers are for comparison to your fellow party members, so that the barbarian can be better at bashing stuff than the rogue.

And NPCs will not be using the same system as the PCs. Nothing else in the world will. The NPCs will be treated like monsters.


3.Not every system/genre/style of game can have solving problems through gaining proper gear. How would you advise dealing with problems then?
Please elaborate. :smallconfused:



Xiaolin Showdown is a great example of advancement without XP/leveling. The characters get new toys every 2-3 episodes and then get big power jumps at important plot points.

So it's totally not necessary. TV shows do it all the time.

This is a sort of system which I think treats advancement properly.



It's also episodic, with a "monster/threat of the week" structure.

(Also, if you time your XP/rewards right you can make it so that the PCs gain important new loot every 2-3 sessions and always level at important plot points, so this isn't necessarily a result of using a different system.)

The same philosophy can be applied to other structures, and timing XP is extra hassle which doesn't always work out right.

jindra34
2013-05-17, 07:50 PM
By using a very high relative challenge stat block.

Or did you mean something more than that? :smallconfused:
I did mean something else. I meant how much of the challenge would the players be able to reliably guess. After all the person running it could throw something over there heads, or could decide to throw something easy at them and just describe it as a dragon.


The numbers are for comparison to your fellow party members, so that the barbarian can be better at bashing stuff than the rogue.

And NPCs will not be using the same system as the PCs. Nothing else in the world will. The NPCs will be treated like monsters.
Lets say our Barbarian has a Strength score of 9 (on a scale of 1-10) and the Wizard has a score of 3. Relatively, how much stronger is the barbarian than the wizard? And how much stronger is he than an average peasant? And if one of the answers is it depends, then whats the point of actually saying you have a 9 over some other number when you can't even reliably and accurately judge what that means in relation to common tasks?


Please elaborate. :smallconfused:

Cavemen, games with an extreme supernatural powers, and of course situations where the PCs already have the best possible makeable grade of gear.

Scow2
2013-05-17, 08:02 PM
This is a sort of system which I think treats advancement properly.

Which is very similar to how the systems you decry handle it, if you check the math.

SimonMoon6
2013-05-17, 08:04 PM
I did mean something else. I meant how much of the challenge would the players be able to reliably guess. After all the person running it could throw something over there heads, or could decide to throw something easy at them and just describe it as a dragon.

As opposed to D&D, where the DM could say, "You see an elf," which might be a 1st level commoner or a 20th level wizard.

Jay R
2013-05-17, 10:01 PM
If you want such a game, write it and run it.

Would you like to post some ideas? :smalltongue:

No, of course not. We're talking about a concept you want and I don't. Any ideas from me would be worthless.

Water_Bear
2013-05-17, 10:12 PM
As opposed to D&D, where the DM could say, "You see an elf," which might be a 1st level commoner or a 20th level wizard.

If your DM says "you see an elf" throw a book at their head. Seriously, that's such a worthless description that you might as well not say anything at all.

Ghost Nappa
2013-05-17, 10:15 PM
I feel the need to clarify my current opinions:


I am not arguing about people getting better in real life, just how this should be reflected in game.
It's not advancement in general I'm opposed to: it's automatic 'vertical' advancement.

If there's a story reason to advance, by all means advance! If the story calls for you to be fighting "stronger" opponents, and for your prior foes to seem weaker, then that they should! It's only gaining power as an implicit assumption that I have a problem with.

Gaining new abilities depends on the power of the ability: going from a safecracker to a safecracker and a con man could be okay when learning to breathe fire or regenerate wouldn't.


I think after reading this entire thread and being rather confused I think I finally understand what you are trying to argue across.
To re-phrase this:

Players and characters should not automatically gain significant jumps in power. Just because you've been killing the Level 2 Goldfish Poop Gang (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoldfishPoopGang) on every stop along a Nation-wide tour does mean that you should improve from the ability to hold off a raging horde of barbarian orcs to ruler of the cosmos. The jumps in strength should be justified given the threats you are actually fighting. In a way, it's a Lamarkian approach to game design. Instead of spontaneously gaining flight, and becoming capable of opening the fabric of reality, maybe you can just lift 2 more pounds.

Unlike many of the other people who have commented, not only have I not played anything outside of d20, I'm actually fairly new to the Tabletop RPG setting as a participant. However, one thing I can talk about is why you do have the bend reality model over the +2 to encumbrance limit model. I feel like it's sort of been the entire debate up to this point, but I'll give it a shot.

The reason for why there is such advancement is that...well there are many reasons.

It could be game design. Perhaps it never occured to the designers that something as an increase in 2 pounds in the amount of weight you can carry is not only far more realistic of a mechanic, but it is a significant boost in overall utility. Perhaps it did occur to the designers that an encumbrance boost was cool. But most people would agree that being able to fly wherever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want is far cooler a reward (compare receiving for Christmas: a small, wooden riding horse and a living pegasus).

But why do that when you can have BOTH (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UpToEleven), and s giant laser sword? The problem is that "realistic growth" and "extraordinarily supernatural growth" are perhaps seen to be mutually exclusive (and it never seems to occur to people that you could...I don't know...alternate between them? (It did. That's what off-levels are for. Why else would you not receive a Feat every level? (Because I'd like to think I'm not spontaneously and unnecessarily growing undue amounts of legs in places I don't need them. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RunningGag) (That's disgusting! (I know.))))
and as players we want to have fun. But it's hard to create a system that
1) Is fun to both play in and construct (that is, both players and DM)
2) That is fair and balanced (assuming we aren't deliberately trying to do otherwise (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards))
3) Creates a system where milestones make sense in any and all contexts.
4) has newer material continually produced that doesn't violate the former three. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerCreep)

The first job is the task of the game creator. If the game creator fails, the system as a whole fails and you're probably not playing it.

The second job is a stylistic choice in the end, but is very often a main influence on gameplay. One of the design choices of 4th ed. of D&D was to bring casters and warriors to the same level.

The third job is perhaps the biggest source of issue for this entire discussion I think. Why does the wizard receive the ability to bend reality because he killed one more rat that pushed him over the edge? *Deep breath*
The placement of these milestones falls to the game designer: the rate at which they are achieved AND their contexts falls to the DM. You probably shouldn't give nearly as much XP to players for killing Level 1 Rats when you're Level 15 then when you were Level 2. But the milestones and actual change in what you can do should be visible from when you are Level 2 and Level 15.

Tangent:
A REALLY good example of this is The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (the series as a whole works really well, but SS specifically is on the mind.) As the story progresses, your sword is blessed and better tempered and becomes stronger. In terms of power, you can SEE the change in damage because past enemy mooks still show up even if they are weaker relatively. Hell, in the finale they're one HP wonders. In the very beginning of the game it took upward (ha, puns) of four or five swings of the blade to drop them. New bosses still had the same relative difficulty to each other but you fight a non-unique boss enemy later, it's significantly easier the second time. Perhaps part of the DM's job is to not only find appropriately strong threats and enemies to throw at the party, but also to remember how far they've come and just how strong and deadly they are. If you never stop to see how far you've come or gone, of COURSE it'll seem like you're not going anyway. It's only when you sit down and think about your accomplishments do you appreciate them.

Back to main point:
The DM however, does not control the order of milestones or at what arbitrary point they are reached. They DO however does control how long it takes to get there. They can restrict players to stick to weapons or spells that make sense in context (i.e. if Fire spells are lost to History, then no one should be learning Fireball!)

The fourth is once again, the responsibility of the game designer. The problem with long-running series is that eventually you run out of creative gimmicks for new ideas, and you can only re-skin old things for so long before people notice. (You could however do it deliberately... (http://www.teamfortress.com/roboticboogaloo/)) A perfectly designed system takes one improperly balanced addition to ruin the whole thing. And when it does, people will stop making meaningful decisions and jump at the better ones.

And that's how game design could be one reason for inappropriately timed vertical growth.

Now as for game theory... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterFilibuster)

Edit:
Xiaolin Showdown is a great example of advancement without XP/leveling. The characters get new toys every 2-3 episodes and then get big power jumps at important plot points.

So it's totally not necessary. TV shows do it all the time.

A TV show however is not subject to the whims and unpredictability of up to six equally intelligent human beings who are actively making decisions as the world is literally being constructed around them. The writer of a TV show effectively is railroading the plot with a script. Perhaps there is some form of episodicness, but there's still continuity that needs to be maintained so we don't have the Status Quo EVERYTIME. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StatusQuoIsGod) In a way, the system guarantees power-ups even if they're not plot relevant. Which makes some sense. Not everything is going to be a plot point, although we have been trained to think this way by bards. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfConservationOfDetail) There are in fact moments in story-telling where characters seem to get stronger for no damn reason. (then of course we find out there are in fact reasons, but at the time...) The problem is that it would be particularly annoying for a DM to justify the spontaneous power growth of 6 players who use potentially 6 different means of power every single time they level up in EVERY single campaign. Roughly speaking, "You did a thing: you got better at things." is a wish fulfillment thing that we ignore because not only does it make players feel good, but it also reduces a need for using playing time to perform realistic amounts of training. You got the powers because you need them. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewPowersAsThePlotDemands) It's very much a willing suspension of disbelief that you are creating for the sanity of your DM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation). Most DMs are not going to sink enough time into preparation for one session to justify that level of integration unless it's a very special night.

tl;dr: It happens because it gives off some sense progression to players while not violating most people sense of immersion. ("False" or "true" progression is irrelevant so long as some sense of progression is felt. If you're going to argue that the feeling of progression is not enough for "actual progression" than we're going to get FAR FAR FAR further into both semantics and arbitrary standards than we unnecessarily already have and I don't think my mind is capable of handling that level of complexity of semanticalness and word-making-upping (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense).

JellyPooga
2013-05-17, 11:31 PM
But it's hard to create a system that
1) Is fun to both play in and construct (that is, both players and DM)
2) That is fair and balanced (assuming we aren't deliberately trying to do otherwise (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards))
3) Creates a system where milestones make sense in any and all contexts.
4) has newer material continually produced that doesn't violate the former three. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerCreep)

I agree with much of your post, but here (and it's accompanying explanation) I will have to (respectfully) be argumentative :smallwink:
I'll address them in order:

1) Fun to play is too subjective to be any kind of qualifying factor. I could find only playing blue characters fun, but others don't enjoy being a smurf so much. I won't comment further on this one.

2) Being fair and balanced is not a necessary factor for an RPG. As you allude, imbalance can actually be a core element of a game. However, I would generally agree that more people will enjoy a game that has the appearance of balance, at least, as it allows greater freedom of choice within the parameters of the system.

As an additional comment here, it is inherently harder to maintain a sense of balance in a system that incorporates a mechanical power-increase to the characters (whether it be through XP, levels or whatever), than it is to create a static system with a similar level of balance. If the system works with one set of words describing the numbers, then it will still work with different words, but the same numbers. Chalk on up for the "No Level-Ups" team!

3) Milestones are an important factor, true. Whether those milestones require adjudicating numerically, within the rules, is not so true. Yes, you can say "hoorah, you've achieved [the milestone], have +1 [ability]". Equally, you can mark the milestone with anything; feel free to replace that "+1 [ability]" with any of the following: a shiny copper piece, a holiday, a day named after you, free training with Fung-Li-Chum the waffle-master, my daughters hand in marriage*.
*no, you can't really marry my daughter. I don't have one.

To illustrate, here's two examples of very basic systems representing the same scenario (not a necessary read, so spoilered for length):
The Scenario: Fred the Chef, having bested the Muffin-dragon, is rewarded with a months tutelage with Fung-Li-Chum the Waffle-master.
System 1 : Freds "Waffle-making" skill is increased from 3 to 4. Hoorah, he now has a higher Waffle-making skill. Lesser waffle-makers fall before his prowess with batter, though the seven deadly Cupcake Ninjas (who have a Cake-making skill of 5) might yet pose a challenge!
System 2: Freds "Expert Waffle-maker" skill of 3 is upgraded to "Trained by Fung-Li-Chum, the Waffle-master" (it's still rated at 3). Hoorah, lesser waffle-makers fall before his prowess with batter, though the seven deadly Cupcake Ninjas (who have a "Ninja Cake-maker" skill of 5) might yet pose a challenge!

So, "what's different?" I hear you ask.

System 1 is limited. It is defined by the numerical value of the ability. For as long as the system allows the numbers to go up, it must also detail the possibilities of those numbers. If Waffle-making 10 is the pinnacle of that particular art, then your character can no longer improve his skill at waffle making once his skill reaches 10. If the system is open-ended (i.e. no theoretical maximum), then what, exactly, does a skill level of 11 mean? Follow this line of thought and it leads to (to use a real game example) things like Epic levels in D&D 3.5. What does a DC:100 Jump check let you do? How about DC:200? Is there really any point in going further than a certain level? Probably not. There is always going to be a certain point at which the numbers cease to mean anything and if the numbers are what define the thing, then the thing itself loses its meaning.

System 2, on the other hand, is defined by the words. It is only limited by new words, not by the numbers. The numbers are there to provide a sense of gaming instead of just make-believe and also to impose a sense of challenge, but those numbers can be much simplified (compared to System 1) and you don't have to detail the numbers to the nth degree. This is because the skill description does the detailing. It's given as read that a chef who is a mere "Expert Waffle-maker" is going to be worse at making waffles than one who has been "Trained by Fung-Li-Chum". The Deadly Cupcake Ninjas are a difficult challenge to the latter, but virtually insurmountable to the former. In this kind of system, Ninjas present a relative challenge of 5 to the "TbF-L-C" guy, but "EW-m" guy might be presented with a challenge of 7. The scenario numbers change because the character numbers don't. This allows for a static and far easier to balance ruleset because the numbers don't get out of control, whilst simultaneously allowing for far greater expansion of abilities.

4) New material is, again, not necessary for a good RPG. You could argue that a constant flow of new material is a sign of a poorer game because the original material was not sufficient! However, the "No Levelling" system wins here again. With it's more stable internal balance, new material need only work with descriptions, not numbers. You want the "Super Death Attack" ability in your game as a high-power attack? With a vertical-advancement based game, you need to decide where in the intricate power structure that ability fits and how it will interact, numerically, with every single other ability. With horizontal-advancement, no numbers are changing, only the descriptions. So whatever ability includes Super Death Attack, is now capable of taking on stronger foes, so that character is capable of doing more with that ability. The Challenges he faces will now be easier.

Anyhoo...I think I've achieved a "waffley rant" now, so I'm going to stop typing!

TuggyNE
2013-05-18, 12:40 AM
Anyhoo...I think I've achieved a "waffley rant" now, so I'm going to stop typing!

I have only one question: just what is a "pooga"?

JellyPooga
2013-05-18, 12:50 AM
I have only one question: just what is a "pooga"?

I. Don't. Know. :smalleek:

Rhynn
2013-05-18, 01:31 AM
Cool, so we've disposed of a lot of the arguments already. Now we're at "there is nothing bad about advancement, but you don't need it." Hey - we've repeatedly covered that many RPGs don't have it.

However, you keep making false or nonsensical arguments:


You aren't really tackling greater challenges, though. Unless you tell my your odds of dying at level 20 are greater than at level 10, then that doesn't sound like your challenges are really getting harder at all. :smallyuk:

Again with the levels!

You keep pretending that the ratio of numbers remains constant - and that that's all that matters, when you yourself keep bringing up tactics etc.

Yes, in Rolemaster/MERP (which does have levels!), you are much more likely to die going up against a fire dragon than against an orc, regardless of your level. The dragon is qualitatively different, in addition to being quantitatively more powerful. The orc cannot fly or breathe fire, there are really no ways to defend against fire, and getting a fire critical can leave you a charred ruin. As your levels increase, your ability to take on the dragon increases, but it's still going to be more dangerous at level 20 than an orc was at level 10. (Especially since by level 10 you'd already reached the point of diminishing returns on your specialties, except if you're a magic-user.)

In HârnMaster, there are no levels, but the general idea is still the same. Here, the numbers are internal. Your chance to hit with a weapon absolutely, directly, and linearly increase as your skill does (same as RuneQuest). A dragon is never going to be only as dangerous as a gargűn (orc) was at some stage, especially because of the scale of advancement (a knight is likely to start with 80s in his main skills and won't increase much beyond 100s).

In Aces & Eights, there's no ratio of numbers either, really. As you gain gunfighting experience, your chance to hit (an internal number) increases and you get faster (shooting earlier). Your Fame and Reputation start to let you stay in the fight longer when wounded (rather than running away) and start to discourage your enemies. Your opponents are humans, with non-arbitrary abilities (well, and mountain lions, etc., again with non-arbitrary abilities). As you get better, your chances of shooting first and hitting go up, and while you might go up against more expert gunfighters on occasion (since they are now less likely to kill you), it's not like the West is suddenly going to be filled with clones of William Butler Hickok. Most of those gunfighters were probably features of the setting before you decided you had a chance against them. (And the GM is probably not going to be setting their abilities to suit you.) You also might put your abilities to use doing more dangerous things - although given that robbing a bank or a stagecoach are pretty good activities for beginning characters, too, you're probably not going to take on significantly more dangerous challenges, but to take on more of the same dangerous challenges (you're more likely to get away unscathed, so you're going to spend less time on your back and hoping you don't die of gangrene or infection).

Your argument is nonsensical at the core, though - why should your odds of dying increase as you grow more powerful? You keep pretending that relative challenges have to increase - you're the one making a weird, false implicit assumption. Your odds of dying of don't need to stay the same or increase. They can, often do, and possibly should decrease. This is true of old D&D editions, for instance. The generally accepted maxim is that if you make it alive to 4th level, your chances of dying drop dramatically and you have a good chance (not 90%, though) of going on staying alive and slowly climbing levels for as long as you want to play.

You also don't seem to acknowledge that most RPGs include "vertical" and "horizontal" advancement: your numbers increase and you get new abilities. D&D is actually a prime example of this, especially 3E with its feats and class abilities. But even in OD&D, clerics and magic-users get new spells that let the party tackle different challenges. Before, certain afflictions necessiated a trip back to town for healing, but once your cleric can cast 3rd-level spells, he can cure them. You get access to water breathing, fly, etc., changing the way the party can approach challenges. But you also can take on more orcs with more confidence because your hit points have gone up.

So, there's qualitatively harder and quantitatively harder challenges. Usually, advancement improves you in both ways. Sometimes, challenges increase in both ways, but 1. not always and 2. not in proportion. The idea that your chances of failure/death/success must remain constant for play to be fun or challenging is a fallacy, and your own arguments actually support this.

Essentially, you've been reduced to "there's nothing wrong with advancement but it's not necessary." Hey, that's true. No rules are actually necessary. How do you decide which ones to keep? Your "implicit assumption" accusation works against basically all rules in most systems. (Some systems are pretty wildly different and do essentially start from a "blank slate"; especially Forge-y RPGs.) But what and why are you debating, then? Why aren't you over in Homebrew shaping up with your own vision of a game system? (Me, I've got basic resolution, combat basics, skills, and basic character creation down, and am working on lifepath and career lists! Next up, advanced combat and lots of math, then cybernetics.)


Honestly, I think the main reason I'm finding so many of your arguments so silly is because you don't have a clue about how different RPGs work.

So, are you going to try out Wushu? You obviously lack experience with non-post-WotC D&D RPGs, and could probably use it, and Wushu has been described as just about exactly the sort of system you're looking for.

SiuiS
2013-05-18, 04:48 AM
I feel the need to clarify my current opinions:

If there's a story reason to advance, by all means advance! If the story calls for you to be fighting "stronger" opponents, and for your prior foes to seem weaker, then that they should! It's only gaining power as an implicit assumption that I have a problem with.


Is the bolder portion not an implicit assumption of Advancement? :?

Geordnet
2013-05-18, 11:40 AM
I did mean something else. I meant how much of the challenge would the players be able to reliably guess. After all the person running it could throw something over there heads, or could decide to throw something easy at them and just describe it as a dragon.
Then that's a GM problem.

Unless the PCs are supposed to be so powerful that dragons aren't a challenge to them. :smalltongue:

(This can be done in a system with traditional advancement, anyways. I can homebrew a CR 5 "dragon", can I not?)



Lets say our Barbarian has a Strength score of 9 (on a scale of 1-10) and the Wizard has a score of 3. Relatively, how much stronger is the barbarian than the wizard? And how much stronger is he than an average peasant? And if one of the answers is it depends, then whats the point of actually saying you have a 9 over some other number when you can't even reliably and accurately judge what that means in relation to common tasks?
The point is that comparing exact differences between characters is not the purpose of the system. The numbers exist purely for mechanical reasons; it's up to the players to interpret what they really mean through observed effects.



Cavemen, games with an extreme supernatural powers, and of course situations where the PCs already have the best possible makeable grade of gear.
The solution to whatever problem there is will be very dependent upon the situation, but I can give some examples:

Cavemen could make a better-shaped spear, arrow, javelin, club, axe, mace, or even just rock; they can lie in ambush, set up a pitfall or snare, or use fire to drive their prey out. When "supernatural" powers are common they just become tools like any other; and there's always something better, even if it's only situationally better.

It's a separate issue from my most recent suggestion, anyways.



I think after reading this entire thread and being rather confused I think I finally understand what you are trying to argue across.
To re-phrase this:

Players and characters should not automatically gain significant jumps in power. Just because you've been killing the Level 2 Goldfish Poop Gang (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoldfishPoopGang) on every stop along a Nation-wide tour does mean that you should improve from the ability to hold off a raging horde of barbarian orcs to ruler of the cosmos. The jumps in strength should be justified given the threats you are actually fighting. In a way, it's a Lamarkian approach to game design. Instead of spontaneously gaining flight, and becoming capable of opening the fabric of reality, maybe you can just lift 2 more pounds.
Close, very close... But not quite. Yes, I do believe that advancement should be proportional to the task at hand, but that's a separate issue from if it is occurring at all.



Anyhoo...I think I've achieved a "waffley rant" now, so I'm going to stop typing!
I'm just thankful to have a supporting argument. :smallbiggrin:



You keep pretending that relative challenges have to increase - you're the one making a weird, false implicit assumption.
Because relative challange is all that matters to me! :smallyuk:

I don't care whether my character can destroy worlds with but a thought or can't even squish a bug. It just doesn't matter to me at all. All that I care about is the relative difficulty of the challenges I face, because that is why I play games: to be challanged.

And not to sound rude, but I don't care what other people like, either. They don't have to play the same game as me. Now, we can either agree to work upon that common assumption, or we are at an impasse and there can be no further useful discussion. :smallannoyed:



Is the bolder portion not an implicit assumption of Advancement? :?
No; what I mean by implicit is "advancement whether the story requires it or not."



EDIT:
On another note, would anyone be interested in starting up another thread to discuss actually making a system based upon the idea I had? (Leaving PC stats the same, and adjusting NPC/monster stats?)

Rhynn
2013-05-18, 11:54 AM
Because relative challange is all that matters to me! :smallyuk:

I don't care whether my character can destroy worlds with but a thought or can't even squish a bug. It just doesn't matter to me at all. All that I care about is the relative difficulty of the challenges I face, because that is why I play games: to be challanged.

And not to sound rude, but I don't care what other people like, either. They don't have to play the same game as me. Now, we can either agree to work upon that common assumption, or we are at an impasse and there can be no further useful discussion. :smallannoyed:

What impasse? What are we working towards? This is a thread about why advancement isn't necessary, although the OP was actually about "what is wrong with advancement" (which got thrashed).

As a side effect, people have recommended systems to you (like Wushu), and told you that D&D is not the only RPG out there by far.

Note, too, that the ratios of the numbers don't actually have that much to do with the difficulty of challenges (like "stop that army" or "defeat that evil overlord"). The number ratios mostly only have to do with the success chances of individual tests. Just as you, yourself, have repeatedly pointed out, being challenged doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with the numbers - it's perfectly valid (and IMO more fun) to challenge the player to think, to be clever and creative, to be attentive, and to try things in order to succeed. Your character can keep getting better and better (qualitatively and quantitatively), while the enemies either stay the same or develop at a lower rate, yet you can keep getting challenged because the challenges change qualitatively.

Basically, what are you trying to do here, now that your arguments against advancement have been thrashed and you're at "well there's nothing wrong with advancement except I don't like it and it's not necessary" (just as no rule at all is actually necessary) ?

You keep talking generally, so I keep responding in a larger context. If you want to homebrew a system, and seek feedback on specific mechanisms within that to achieve specific effects in play, there's a Homebrew subforum - you might be more successful there (although IME your chances of success are basically 0% if your only RPG experience is with D&D 3E/4E or d20 System). This thread is pretty entrenched in discussing advancement by now, often in specific cases in specific systems. (Largely because you started out with specific arguments in a specific system, and the discussion developed from there.)

Water_Bear
2013-05-18, 12:43 PM
Because relative challange is all that matters to me! :smallyuk:

I don't care whether my character can destroy worlds with but a thought or can't even squish a bug. It just doesn't matter to me at all. All that I care about is the relative difficulty of the challenges I face, because that is why I play games: to be challanged.

So...

If a level 1 party goes into the Orc Warrens in search of treasure, dodging cunning traps and Orc patrols...
Then a level 4 party uses ambushes and hit-and-fade tactics to defeat a large Orc Warband coming out of the hills...
And later a level 9 party gathers together to defend the Fighter's Castle against a besieging force of thousands of Orcs...
Followed by a level 15 party leads a mission into the dangerous Orc Mountain Lair to cut off the Orc High Prophet from their dark powersource...
Eventually leading to the 20th level party storming a hostile demiplane full of unimaginable deific horrors to kill Gruumsh himself...

It gives no advantage that all of those challenges were overcome by the same party?

The fact is leveling up gives you access to new regions of play; you are able to face challenges on scales which you were simply not capable of competing on before. And by having one character being able to experience a variety of types of challenge you keep it from getting stale while also getting the satisfaction of seeing your character grow in power.

If you assume a level 20 character will still be dungeoncrawling for gold pieces or slumming it with small numbers of low-CR monster, yes then that would be boring. But as the word "Level" implies, you are supposed to reach new levels of play and seek out different types of challenge as the game progresses.

JellyPooga
2013-05-18, 01:10 PM
If a level 1 party goes into the Orc Warrens in search of treasure, dodging cunning traps and Orc patrols...
Then a level 4 party uses ambushes and hit-and-fade tactics to defeat a large Orc Warband coming out of the hills...
And later a level 9 party gathers together to defend the Fighter's Castle against a besieging force of thousands of Orcs...
Followed by a level 15 party leads a mission into the dangerous Orc Mountain Lair to cut off the Orc High Prophet from their dark powersource...
Eventually leading to the 20th level party storming a hostile demiplane full of unimaginable deific horrors to kill Gruumsh himself...

You're quite right, in what you say regarding the relative levels of play, but you can equally simulate the same dynamic without (thank you Rhynn) quantative advancement. The quantative progression isn't *necessary*. The Level 20 party isn't, as you say, going to be slumming it in dungeons killing the orc warriors they were at Level 1; it's just not a challenge for them. So the question is "why do you need rules to simulate that kind of situation?". The relative challenge is irrelevant in that circumstance. "Levelling up" doesn't give you access to new regions of play, it merely ups the ante such that new regions of play are the only ones worth bothering with.

So change the qualitative abilities of the characters, instead and the rules need only support the challenges that are relevant.

- A lowly "Ex-militiaman" goes into the Orc Warrens in search of treasure, dodging cunning traps and Orc patrols...
- Then a "Professional Mercenary" uses ambushes and hit-and-fade tactics to defeat a large Orc Warband coming out of the hills...
- And later a "Knight of the Realm" gathers a force to defend the Fighter's Castle against a besieging force of thousands of Orcs...
- Followed by the "Paladin of Light", who leads a mission into the dangerous Orc Mountain Lair to cut off the Orc High Prophet from their dark powersource...
Eventually leading to the "Lord of the Heavens' Hosts" storming a hostile demiplane full of unimaginable deific horrors to kill Gruumsh himself

There's no advantage that all of these challenges are overcome by the same person and the rules adjudicating those challenges don't have to change as that character progresses through those tiers of play. Only the way in which you approach the situation and use the abilities described will change.

The "Lord of Heavens' Hosts" isn't going to be challenged any more than a Level 20 character by dungeon crawling in the Orc Warrens.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-18, 01:26 PM
The reason for mechanical advancement as opposed to purely roleplayed advancement is probably to provide a sense of advancement. If all that changes over time is the words I'm using, everything is the exact same as it was in level one, and there's no reason to be excited about progressing.

It also makes it a lot easier to have characters whose abilities do not simply undergo quantitative increase but also increase qualitatively. A spellcaster that can stop time, teleport, and fly has a very different set of abilities from one tossing out small energy blasts, so why should I represent them with the same mechanics?

It also means that character advancement is more than 'make up some new descriptions for the abilities you've had for the last three months'.

Rhynn
2013-05-18, 01:29 PM
You're quite right, in what you say regarding the relative levels of play, but you can equally simulate the same dynamic without (thank you Rhynn) quantative advancement. The quantative progression isn't *necessary*. The Level 20 party isn't, as you say, going to be slumming it in dungeons killing the orc warriors they were at Level 1; it's just not a challenge for them. So the question is "why do you need rules to simulate that kind of situation?". The relative challenge is irrelevant in that circumstance. "Levelling up" doesn't give you access to new regions of play, it merely ups the ante such that new regions of play are the only ones worth bothering with.

This is still only accurate if you compare pretty wildly different power levels, though.

For instance, if I run the Undermountain dungeon, the players get to decide where they want to explore. As they gain levels, they're going to be able to push deeper and longer into the dungeon, discovering new areas - organically, at their pace, without me micromanaging where they go. I don't need to plan the play sessions so much as I just need to create the dungeon. (Challenges within a level of the dungeon won't be uniform, either.)

The same goes for running the Savage Frontier as a sandbox setting. The players get to choose where they go, and their quantitative and qualitative abilities determine their risks and chance of success. If they go take on a hill giant tribe at level 6, they're probably going to lose more members than if they went to take them on at level 9, but both are going to be a challenge.

Advancement rules facilitate organic, player-directed gameplay where no one makes up things from whole cloth, and everyone gets to be surprised by what happens.

No one has to play that way, but many of us find it a great way to play.


So change the qualitative abilities of the characters, instead and the rules need only support the challenges that are relevant.

Qualitative options are more about making things easier and changing how you can approach things than about taking on greater challenges in and of themselves. I think both qualitative and quantitative advancement are important; for one thing, this means I can use standardized stats for various opponents, etc., without coming up with new ones all the time.

What you describe sounds inorganic to me. (This might be due to inexperience with storytelling RPGs. The closest I've come to those is Robin D. Laws' HeroQuest.) I like rules that produce results that result in different kinds of adventures organically.

Edit: To clarify, by qualitative advancement I mean something Geordnet mentioned and I elaborated on earlier: getting new abilities, rather than changing the names or descriptions. Gaining the ability to fly is a qualitative advancement. Being more likely to hit an opponent is a quantitative advancement. /Edit


Incidentally, does Dogs in the Vineyard have any kind of advancement? From what I know of the system, I'd figure it may not bother.

JellyPooga
2013-05-18, 01:56 PM
I won't disagree with what either of you say Raineh Daze and Rhynn. The kind of system I'm describing is something of a right-angle to squeeze your head through when coming from the background most of us were brought up in, with regards to character development!

Quantative advancement has it's advantages, no doubt and it does give a better sense of advancement in as much as the rules your using change along with the qualitative changes.

It also makes pre-planned adventures a lot easier to write with any certainty because the abilities of your foes are static rather than mutable. It is easier, however, to simulate a graded challenge story arc. As an example, I might want to write an adventure that goes;

Challenge 1: Easy Introduction
Challenge 2: Tough blind-sider fight
Challenge 3-5: Average
Challenge 6: Sub-boss
Challenge 7: Interlude
Challenge 8: Big Finale

Now, in a system that has quantative advancement, working out the details of all these and whether they will be an appropriate challenge is a long-winded process. You have to decide on the specifics of the challenges themselves, compare them to the abilities of the PCs, etc. etc.

With a qualitative advancement system, the difficulties of the challenges can be hard and fast, no messing, no fuss. Just shove some numbers in and make up the details based on the abilities of the PCs (which also won't be changing).

To continue the example; If you wanted Challenge 2 (tough blind-sider fight) to be an Orc Ambush, then with the quant-ad system, you need to work out how tough those orcs need to be compared to the relative abilities of the party, cross-referencing a slew of different abilities. If the characters take a different path and turn up at that point more or less powerful than you anticipated, then what was supposed to be a tough fight might turn out to be trivial or insurmountable.

With the qual-ad system, you know that for any given character in the game, a challenge of X will be hard, so you can plug in the number and get to worrying about the roleplaying details of the scenario. If the players go a different direction in this scenario, they will be turning up with different options available, but the mechanical challenge of the scenario will still be the same and you can alter the details on the fly, to suit.

Not so good for sandbox style game, certainly, but for more narrative style games, I think it works better.

jindra34
2013-05-18, 01:59 PM
The point is that comparing exact differences between characters is not the purpose of the system. The numbers exist purely for mechanical reasons; it's up to the players to interpret what they really mean through observed effects.


See here is the problem with your thinking. The system exists to provide rules and mechanics to resolve conflicts. Conflicts between entities end up effectively comparing two values, in an objective and absolute sense. This is most definitely true when it comes down to things that relate to physical tasks (how much you can lift, how fast you can run, how long you can run etc.) which means that changing what the number (or descriptor) means without changing the value WILL end up confusing the player, and likely wreck any meaning that it held. At which point your no better off than playing a managed free form RP. The system has to provide something over and above just saying: describe what you want to do, role a die and ask the person running it for an explanation of what happened. Which while being the bare-bones is not enough to justify the effort in making it or reading it to play.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-18, 02:14 PM
*snip*

This assumes all qualitative abilities are created equal, and none are quantitatively more powerful than any other.

Unfortunately, this is extremely limiting.

JellyPooga
2013-05-18, 02:18 PM
Conflicts between entities end up effectively comparing two values, in an objective and absolute sense.

This is not necessarily true. Most conflicts in RPGs actually end up comparing values in an abstract manner. Take D&D, for example. HP is one of the most abstract representations of health I've seen in a game! Attack bonuses and defence ratings mean very little outside of what the rules tell you they mean. Even highly detailed systems break abilities down into easy to manage chunks. A qual-ad game merely takes this to an extreme.

edit: @Raineh Daze - No, it only assumes that the values of the abilities characters have will not change. They can have a range of different abilities with differing values and it can even be a very detailed system being such.

Rhynn
2013-05-18, 02:40 PM
Not so good for sandbox style game, certainly, but for more narrative style games, I think it works better.

Quite possibly, yes; although I think you may be talking about extremely narrative-focused games (like Wushu). You can run narrative games with systems that aren't built around narrativism - but obviously, for any specific playstyle and set of preferences, there is an optimal system, and what you describe is going to be it for one set.


This assumes all qualitative abilities are created equal, and none are quantitatively more powerful than any other.

Unfortunately, this is extremely limiting.

Not really. Qualitatives are fairly easy to compare, because they'd usually achieve specific things. It should be fairly easy to consider how a PC having the ability to fly would affect challenges. JellyPooga is describing what I think is a carefully-crafted narrative experience, and I don't think qualitative differences being inequal - or even impossible to compare to each other meaningfully (is the ability to fly more or less powerful than the ability to swim like a fish, if you don't know what kind of physical environments there are?) - is going to have a great effect there. If one PC can swim like a fish and one can fly, you can design challenges for those abilities specifically.

Razanir
2013-05-18, 02:50 PM
Unless the PCs are supposed to be so powerful that dragons aren't a challenge to them. :smalltongue:

(This can be done in a system with traditional advancement, anyways. I can homebrew a CR 5 "dragon", can I not?)

Because relative challange is all that matters to me! :smallyuk:

EDIT:
On another note, would anyone be interested in starting up another thread to discuss actually making a system based upon the idea I had? (Leaving PC stats the same, and adjusting NPC/monster stats?)

First off, here's a real life example of the type of thing we're discussing. Computer science. Let's consider sorted lists. When I started programming in AP, it would have sounded like a daunting task. But now that I have more EXPERIENCE under my belt, it was actually the easiest assignment I did all semester.

Second, might I recommend Legend? It still uses a d20 system and still has levels (making it similar to 3.X), but it eschews XP in favor of the DM deciding when to hand out levels-up. I'm actually using this to creative effect in a campaign I'm planning. I don't want magic to appear at first, but I still want those options available. So I'll let them pick magical tracks as long as they don't get magic at level 1. Then when I want magic to reenter the world, they start leveling up.

Finally, adjusting the world around them seems needlessly difficult and superfluous. It's the exact same effect as leveling the players up.

1=1
1<2 <- leveling the players
0<1 <- diminishing the world

Also, it's just easier to change the players than the world because there's a lot less work to be done

NichG
2013-05-18, 03:06 PM
Qualitative options are more about making things easier and changing how you can approach things than about taking on greater challenges in and of themselves.

I disagree with this. Well, at least, I'd say that qualitative advancement changes the types of challenges that you can reasonably face (which may involve greater challenges to the characters, but not to the players necessarily). At the same time, qualitative advancement can null out old challenges and make them irrelevant (not saying thats good, just saying its the nature of qualitative advancement).

Availability of increasing numbers of utility spells in D&D 3.5 is probably the poster child of qualitative advancement.

Around Lv5 a party can get to an airship/flying castle/other airborne location whereas a lower level party simply cannot do so barring a MacGuffin that solves the problem for them (an air elemental to befriend, an artifact of flight, etc). They can also produce food from nothingness at this point, and cure any disease.

Around Lv9 they can freely travel between planes of existence at their own instigation, go to the afterlife to rescue someone's soul, talk directly to the guardians of the heavens, etc. Before this point, it pretty much requires that the DM planned for them to go to the planes and to place the appropriate portals. They can also cross a reasonably-sized world in a few days and send a message anywhere instantly, which means they can coordinate campaigns or events of vast scale whereas previously they couldn't really do such things. They can also bring people back from the dead at this point.

By Lv17 they can lead armies anywhere they can target with Gate, build castles or cities with a gesture, etc.

These are all examples of things that aren't just a mechanical +X, but drastically change the nature of what makes for an appropriate challenge for the party. At Lv1 a dungeon delve is an appropriate venue. At Lv20 its questionable, since they (could) have so many divination/teleportation/etc effects as to render any sort of room sequence moot.

Rhynn
2013-05-18, 03:45 PM
I disagree with this. Well, at least, I'd say that qualitative advancement changes the types of challenges that you can reasonably face (which may involve greater challenges to the characters, but not to the players necessarily). At the same time, qualitative advancement can null out old challenges and make them irrelevant (not saying thats good, just saying its the nature of qualitative advancement).

I don't disagree with that. I wasn't really being comprehensive. What I was saying is that the kind of qualitative advacement I'm talking about isn't "you go from middling swordsman to swordsmaster" (which seems to be part of what JellyPooga is talking about), it's about gaining entirely new abilities that change how you can approach things. It absolutely means that you can take on entirely new kinds of challenges (like ones that require being able to swim like a fish), but what it doesn't necessarily do is make you able to take on challenges involving higher numbers.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-18, 03:59 PM
The sort of qualitative advancement I was thinking of was 'normal gun to something shooting lots and lots of explosives'. I think this explains a lot of this page.

Rhynn
2013-05-18, 04:02 PM
The sort of qualitative advancement I was thinking of was 'normal gun to something shooting lots and lots of explosives'. I think this explains a lot of this page.

:smallbiggrin: It's a very complex subject, honestly.

Whether that's even a qualitative or quantitative example depends on what exactly the system is. By some of what JellyPooga said, that might be qualitative - the effects are not different numbers, it's just that, using the same numbers, you use the second gun to shoot an army dead the way you used the first gun to shoot a guy dead. But in D&D 3.X, that would be an example of both quantitative and qualitative advancement (of equipment): you have gained an area-of-effect attack, and you deal more damage to individual targets. But in another system, that might be purely quantitative - you went from 2 damage to 8 damage, for instance.

Raineh Daze
2013-05-18, 04:04 PM
I would be disappointed in a system that treats something with lots of collateral damage exactly the same as pinpoint accuracy. I want my risk of friendly fire. >:(

JellyPooga
2013-05-18, 04:33 PM
:smallbiggrin: It's a very complex subject, honestly

You're not kidding! Thus far, I've pretty much been using Wushu as my basis for a "qualitative" game, which expressly ignores things that are not conflicts (it doesn't, for example, have any rules for lifting boulders, unless doing so is part of a greater challenge, like lifting the boulder and throwing it down the hill at the army coming up it).

The more I think about the subject, however, the more I'm starting to think that it would also be possible for a "qual" game to have a greater depth, be less a storytelling system and more simulationist. Hmm...I'm going to go away and have a good long think about this one...

Geordnet
2013-05-18, 06:20 PM
You're quite right, in what you say regarding the relative levels of play, but you can equally simulate the same dynamic without (thank you Rhynn) quantative advancement. The quantative progression isn't *necessary*. The Level 20 party isn't, as you say, going to be slumming it in dungeons killing the orc warriors they were at Level 1; it's just not a challenge for them. So the question is "why do you need rules to simulate that kind of situation?". The relative challenge is irrelevant in that circumstance. "Levelling up" doesn't give you access to new regions of play, it merely ups the ante such that new regions of play are the only ones worth bothering with.

So change the qualitative abilities of the characters, instead and the rules need only support the challenges that are relevant.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. :smallbiggrin:



This assumes all qualitative abilities are created equal, and none are quantitatively more powerful than any other.

Unfortunately, this is extremely limiting.
They don't have to be equal, since the party members do have quantitative advantages over each other. You just need to design the system so that the cost of choosing a certain ability at a certain power is properly proportional.



The reason for mechanical advancement as opposed to purely roleplayed advancement is probably to provide a sense of advancement.
Then that sense is just an illusion anyways, from my point of view. Actually, the fact that this disguise seems ridiculously thin to me is part of why I started this thread...

Besides, the GM could just give the party a number detailing how much power each character has relative to an average person, and have that go up over time. Really, that could even be incorporated into the rules for how qualitative advancement should go...



If all that changes over time is the words I'm using, everything is the exact same as it was in level one, and there's no reason to be excited about progressing.
Using the same numbers for the PCs doesn't imply that encounters are always the same mechanically. You can build more than enough mechanical variety into a qualitative-advancement system that you need never repeat the exact same relative encounter.



It also makes it a lot easier to have characters whose abilities do not simply undergo quantitative increase but also increase qualitatively. A spellcaster that can stop time, teleport, and fly has a very different set of abilities from one tossing out small energy blasts, so why should I represent them with the same mechanics?
This may be the only place the qualitative advancement system breaks down; when the fundamental rules of engagement break down. However, that also happens to be a form of lateral advancement, rather than vertical advancement, so we may be able to adapt to it...



Okay, so new proposal: we hybridize the quantitative and qualitative advancement systems.

Qualitative advancement would be implicit and assumed, working much like traditional XP, except that it's tracked by party and used to guide the GM in shifting monsters from harder relative challenge values to lower ones. (The GM could still introduce new monsters at any relative challenge value, though, and sometimes a specific example of a monster may be weaker or stronger than "the norm".) It would be expressed by a number, which nominally represents power relative to an average human, although the exact meaning of it is deliberately left open to interpretation. It might be measured in how many "average people" a warrior with a certain build can beat up with his bare hands, for instance.

Quantitative advancement would be a special case, which would happen only in rare instances, completely by GM fiat as appropriate. This would be primarily lateral advancement, or an increase in breadth of abilities. It's something that's supposed to be a special reward, done in minor dosages. An example would be if the character gains training from the Muffin Master, he would gain +1 absolute to muffinmaking; but merely becoming a more experienced chef wouldn't be enough to count.


So, the idea is that the qualitative advancement provides that sense of gradually gaining experience, while the quantitative advancements fundamentally change the 'rules of engagement' for how things work. Players would also be allowed to constantly tweak their characters, too; representing how the character might pick up new skills and get rusty in others.




I would be disappointed in a system that treats something with lots of collateral damage exactly the same as pinpoint accuracy. I want my risk of friendly fire. >:(
And I want my FFE. :smalltongue:

Don't worry, there's no reason a qualitative advancement system can't account for quantitative differences as well, if done properly. :smallbiggrin:

Raineh Daze
2013-05-18, 06:29 PM
If a qualitative system can account for quantitative differences too, then it's not a pure qualitative system. Unless you count numbers as qualities, which turns a quantitative system into a subset...


Besides, the GM could just give the party a number detailing how much power each character has relative to an average person, and have that go up over time. Really, that could even be incorporated into the rules for how qualitative advancement should go...

Really? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik)

Geordnet
2013-05-18, 07:21 PM
If a qualitative system can account for quantitative differences too, then it's not a pure qualitative system. Unless you count numbers as qualities, which turns a quantitative system into a subset...

OH! I see what you're missing now. I'm only talking about qualitative advancement. Of course you still need quantitative means of handling things like combat, skill challenges, et cetera. :smalltongue:

Endarire
2013-05-18, 07:27 PM
I love character advancement. In tabletop games, I generally don't like XP. As GM, I award levels at plot-appropriate times. That solves a lot.

TuggyNE
2013-05-18, 07:48 PM
Of course you still need quantitative means of handling things like combat, skill challenges, et cetera. :smalltongue:

You sure?

No, really. That's not a given for tabletop RPGs, from what I know.

Geordnet
2013-05-18, 08:47 PM
You sure?

No, really. That's not a given for tabletop RPGs, from what I know.

Well, a qualitative-mechanics qualitative-advancement system is basically just freeform, and we already know how to do that. I'm talking about making a quantitative-mechanics qualitative-advancement system. :smalltongue:

Friv
2013-05-18, 11:20 PM
You sure?

No, really. That's not a given for tabletop RPGs, from what I know.

It actually sort of is.

The quantative mechanics aren't always directly resolution-based, but there are always rules for defining how scenes and situations resolve. If there aren't, you're playing free-form, which doesn't actually require a system.

TuggyNE
2013-05-19, 12:08 AM
It actually sort of is.

The quantative mechanics aren't always directly resolution-based, but there are always rules for defining how scenes and situations resolve. If there aren't, you're playing free-form, which doesn't actually require a system.

But aren't there systems that resolve those scenes and situations in essentially qualitative ways, without being strictly free-form?

Granted, I haven't played those, but I'm kinda thinking Amber Diceless here, or something. *shrug*

Katasi
2013-05-19, 01:30 AM
I want them to feel awed by things they should be awed by, like God or the forces of nature. I don't want them to feel like they own the place, like they can do things without consequences, like they're the center of the universe.

That doesn't mean they're worthless, though; or can't make a difference. Just look at Frodo. :smalltongue:

That's.... entirely one way of playing yes, but what about people who WANT to feel what it's like to be able to take on and hold one's own against a god, or that nature has no hold on them? Especially if they want the enjoyment of starting humbly? Seems like what you want is the pen and pencil equivilant of a fighting game- everyone is always the same power level, just with different specials. Viable and reasonable I guess. Also your talk of gaining power through diplomacy and status without increasing abilities? At that point the ONLY way you can get power of any sort is DM fiat.... which is about as bad as you can get. Would it be to political to say this is like gaming communism?

Kaerou
2013-05-19, 01:34 AM
Having characters remain mostly static is one of the main complaints as to how many of the old superhero systems failed to really bring in money / gain popularity.

Sure, they had some small advancement but it was small, very specialised on average and you wouldn't see much different.

And really, there is nothing wrong with power. Gaining power does not subtract from roleplay which at the end of the day is the real fun in this game to many. However there is nothing wrong with letting folk who enjoy gaining power from enjoying the game also.

NichG
2013-05-19, 02:42 AM
Also your talk of gaining power through diplomacy and status without increasing abilities? At that point the ONLY way you can get power of any sort is DM fiat.... which is about as bad as you can get. Would it be to political to say this is like gaming communism?

I want to make a distinction here between 'gaining power through DM initiative' and 'gaining power that requires DM ruling'.

A campaign where the DM decides when characters level up (or gain new abilities, or whatever) is one where the only source of changes in power is the DM's initiative. No matter what you do in-game, it won't make a difference to the power you wield. This requires some degree of railroading to prevent power gain through natural consequences.

A campaign where you can only gain power through RP, but the plans to gain power are player initiated is a whole different story. Yes, the DM can basically veto this power gain, but effectively the characters are seeking power of their own will. It lacks the railroady element of the former case.

The difference between the first and 'automatic' advancement is that you're captive to the DM's explicit will. The second however is not that much different from automatic advancement, it just means that some portion of the game has to be dedicated towards the characters seeking power (if that's stopped at every turn, it reverts to the former type of campaign). In some sense its the most player-driven option of the three - if the players want power they can seek it, and if they're happy with their current level of power they are not forced from it by automatic advancement and the corresponding scaling of challenges.

Katasi
2013-05-19, 03:16 AM
I want to make a distinction here between 'gaining power through DM initiative' and 'gaining power that requires DM ruling'.

A campaign where the DM decides when characters level up (or gain new abilities, or whatever) is one where the only source of changes in power is the DM's initiative. No matter what you do in-game, it won't make a difference to the power you wield. This requires some degree of railroading to prevent power gain through natural consequences.

A campaign where you can only gain power through RP, but the plans to gain power are player initiated is a whole different story. Yes, the DM can basically veto this power gain, but effectively the characters are seeking power of their own will. It lacks the railroady element of the former case.

The difference between the first and 'automatic' advancement is that you're captive to the DM's explicit will. The second however is not that much different from automatic advancement, it just means that some portion of the game has to be dedicated towards the characters seeking power (if that's stopped at every turn, it reverts to the former type of campaign). In some sense its the most player-driven option of the three - if the players want power they can seek it, and if they're happy with their current level of power they are not forced from it by automatic advancement and the corresponding scaling of challenges.

I'll concede your point, but would like to point out that most current systems are already to tempting to railroad for some DMs, without making one so easy to.

Rhynn
2013-05-19, 03:36 AM
But aren't there systems that resolve those scenes and situations in essentially qualitative ways, without being strictly free-form?

Granted, I haven't played those, but I'm kinda thinking Amber Diceless here, or something. *shrug*

Amber Diceless does use numbers, although what those come down to sort of is qualitative: either you're "better" or you're "worse" than the person you're in conflict with.

But I agree that there are non-freeform games that are mostly qualitative; I'm just not familiar with enough Forge-y games to really speak on it. Not having specific mechanics for resolving challenges or conflicts doesn't even make a game freeform. If you've got a system and rules, it's not freeform.

Actually, no - I just thought of a game. The Mist-Robed Gate. It is absolutely not freeform and has rules. It has mechanics for resolving conflict. IIRC, no numbers of any sort are used for conflict resolution, just qualitative things and actions. (You can die and make a wish, or stab someone else and make a plea, etc.)

So, the absolutely can be and are non-freeform RPGs that use no numbers at all.

Edit: Does Dogs in the Vineyard use any numbers or dice? I'm really not familiar with the mechanics of the game, but from my understanding, it's mainly qualitative: there's action and consequence.

Geordnet
2013-05-19, 10:45 AM
I want to make a distinction here between 'gaining power through DM initiative' and 'gaining power that requires DM ruling'.

A campaign where the DM decides when characters level up (or gain new abilities, or whatever) is one where the only source of changes in power is the DM's initiative. No matter what you do in-game, it won't make a difference to the power you wield. This requires some degree of railroading to prevent power gain through natural consequences.

A campaign where you can only gain power through RP, but the plans to gain power are player initiated is a whole different story. Yes, the DM can basically veto this power gain, but effectively the characters are seeking power of their own will. It lacks the railroady element of the former case.
The only difference between the two is what kind of GM you have. There's no actual rules difference there.

Remember that the connection between GM and players is a two-way street. The GM may have absolute control over when the PCs gain levels, but if he knows that they are deliberately trying to gain power then of course he should give it out as appropriate. To do otherwise may be irresponsible GMing, but that isn't a sustem problem.



That's.... entirely one way of playing yes, but what about people who WANT to feel what it's like to be able to take on and hold one's own against a god, or that nature has no hold on them? Especially if they want the enjoyment of starting humbly?
Well, they should talk to their GM about it, and he should adapt the system (or find a better one) accordingly. :smalltongue:



At that point the ONLY way you can get power of any sort is DM fiat.... which is about as bad as you can get. Would it be to political to say this is like gaming communism?
Actually, yes: it's a noble idea that works IF AND ONLY IF you can trust the guy in charge, and if you cannot it merely makes a bad situation even worse.

But I'm assuming the GM is a good one, one who listens to his players, and then working from there. With that sort of GM, you can trust his fiat to be fair and just, more than any set of rules designed by people who don't know your group personally would be. If you have a bad GM though, I admit this system will magnify the problem, but I see that as more of a problem with the GM than with the system.



I'll concede your point, but would like to point out that most current systems are already to tempting to railroad for some DMs, without making one so easy to.
Again, railroading seems more a GM problem than a system problem to me. It's nice to have an additional layer of "safeties", sure; but whether that supersedes making the game as fun to play as possible for those with good GMs is entirely variable.

I would argue since this hypothetical system would most likely be designed and published entirely on this forum, it can afford to be designed for a more niche audience than a professionally published system must reach in order to be successful.

jindra34
2013-05-19, 01:38 PM
Geordnet: There are subtle rules differences between the examples. And also a system shouldn't be designed and based around the assumption that the person running the game is going to have the time, patience, empathy, and reasoning to sit down listen and address issues with his players effectively every session. Because the ones who can do that, especially in a system that doesn't provide rules to fall back on/base the decision off of, while themselves learning to run with other people a new system, are very rare and on top of that capable enough that other than genre/system conflicts the system WON'T matter.

NichG
2013-05-19, 05:54 PM
A system cannot stop any particular GM from railroading no matter how its designed. Either such a GM will ignore or modify the parts of the system that thwart the game they want to run or they will refuse to run games in the system. The only thing that can really stop that is communication from the players and the implicit or explicit threat that they will find another game if it doesn't change. So designing a system to be 'less railroadable' feels like a lot of wasted design effort in a direction which is best answered by social interactions, not rules mechanics.

But yes, there are differences between the two cases I mentioned. The main question is 'are natural consequences allowed to apply?'. There are examples in gaming where its best for the game to not allow natural consequences to apply. For example, D&D's Wall of Iron spell breaking the economy. Rather than play every campaign in Tippyworld or ban the spell outright, we generally just ignore the fact that it can be used that way on both sides of the table.

On the other hand, sometimes the rules put pressure against natural consequences applying. 3.5ed's Wealth By Level does this a little bit - it suggests that there is a certain amount of wealth that a party of Lv. X should have, and if that number is off then the world should adjust itself to push the party's wealth towards X from above or below. So if the party does some super-clever thing to make money, that may be shut down for sake of WBL. And it may be good for the game to do so in a system like 3.5, where effectively infinite wealth is worth a 4-5 level bump in power.

In 4ed, treasure parcels, item minimum levels, and the like have sort of the same effect. The party might unearth the tomb of an ancient epic hero, but for mechanical reasons can't use any of his stuff.

So yeah, there's a difference mechanically between 'no power gain except when I say so' and 'you can seek power, but you don't get it automatically'. The mechanical difference is mostly however in what mechanics you can't have (or that you should avoid) when you're trying to seriously do the second.