PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on starting levels, progress in different systems and type of play



Kol Korran
2014-09-03, 04:41 AM
I have been thinking for some years now, on and off, about a campaign I'd like to run. In the process of this I began to think of what different successful shows may have in common in terms of character's efficiency, and progress. And I've looked at how different systems do it.

Now, I am not very well versed in the multitude of systems out there. I've played D&D in it's incarnations, Shadowrun and last year tried Fate core 2 times. They sort of represent the Gamist, Simulationist and Narrative based systems as well.

Also, the thread is not meant as an authoritative analysis or such. It just relays my thoughts, and opens the issue for discussion.

A (very) short review of the game systems in this regard, as I see it
D&D 3.5/ PF:D&D and PF has a meteoric rise of power. A 5th level character plays a different game than a 1st level one, and that could be said for 10th level, 15th level and 20th level. It irked me a bit that this progress is very, very fast in most games. Usually a matters of months in game time, at most a year or two if the group takes "time off". Characters in D&D re rising stars, (If they survive). Oddly enough, most high level NPCs are said to have taken a very long time to get to their level of power. At some settings the PCs are assumed to be special people, out of the norm, which explains their great ascent to power. In other settings it is unexplained.

In D&D E6 the characters rise to 6th level (Or higher levels in E8 or E10 versions), but then remain fairly static in terms of stats, except for gaining more feats, which mimics slower rate of progression, mostly of learned techniques/ skills and such, but not an exponential growth of power.

D&D 2nd edition and older modules: In these modules the progress was slower if I recal correctly, much slower, but mainly due to encounters/ creatures being worth far less XP. You needed to go through a lot more in order to level up. And on the whole, the power gain was less radical. I have not played this gme in a considerable time, so I'm not sure how to relay to that. But on the whole the general concept is kept. The characters still get to be near god like being, and start as mooks. How does changing the time it takes to get there changes the game? I'm not certain.

In Shadowrun the characters begin as high skilled professionals, and while they advance their skills and such, the change is minor compared to the initial build. In terms of growth of power, there is tuning and improving, but on the whole, the rise in power is far far moderate, and what you start with makes a great deal of what you'll end with. This is partly due to the simulationist design I assume, but also inherent in the flavor of the setting, where the shadow runners, while they impact things, still stay far underpowered compared to the major forces of the world, and in the shadows.

In Fate core there is a peculiar approach from the little I understood. As in Shadowrun, the character you start with doesn't advance a whole lot more stat wise- skills rise VERY slowly, and you gain stunts at even a slower rate. However, the main changes to the character re changes to it's aspects, which are narrative tools, who have a game impact. A "Knight of the order of X" has a markedly different effect than "Renegade of the order of X". As such, the focus remains on the personality, character, affiliations and place of the character in the world, less on their stats, which serves well the purpose of a Narrativistic game.

Type of game you play (More precisely, thoughts on what sort of game I'd like to run?)
Seeing some shows which I find intriguing, such as Buffy, Firefly, Deadwood, Babylon 5 and such, I find that the main thing that attracts me to the characters are not how powerful they are, but a slow progress and story. For there to be long running series, and for them to be believable characters, it was essential that the progression of character will be fairly slow. Yes, I know there are exceptions (Such as Willow or River) but even then, the exceptions are considered as such in the series- unique, with their power discrepencies proving problematic for the main group of PCs to handle at times. Their exceptional status nehances the "slow progress" of the others, and it is used as a story driving point.

I find it that in D&D it is quite hard for some players to relate to certain NPCs, due to the rapid change in power, which leads to different interactions, responsibilities, and experiences. Yes, I know that some of the interactions with NPCs do not rely on that, but the rapid power difference DOES affect that considerably. The PCs are becoming something quite different. (Think of real life relationships where the people move and experience different worlds. It does put a strain). The (few) other game systems I described give a far more gradual progress, and from my experience, it made it easier to relate to other NPCs, and to develop attachments to places, people and so on. The playing field was more even, the experiences more the same...

Coming to think of it, a lot of this thread comes from my attempts in the last years to create a campaign where the players and characters attach themselves more to the world. I've GMed and played in D&D, played in SR, and GMed in Fate, and noticed the differences. (Though in Fate my experience was too brief). While there are MANY things that affect attachment, I found that "the meteoric rise" of the hero was detrimental to this, for a few reasons:
1) The different experience and progression of the hero puts a strain on relating to others. The heroes are set apart. They are meant to be so. When at 2nd level you are the underling of an 8th level NPC, 2-3 months later you are their equal in experience, responsibilities and impact on the world, and 2 months lter you far surpass them, it makes relationships hard.

2) The time frame itself. When a PC gains a new level (An important part of her development), every 10-15 encounters/ scenes and such, Every challenge matters, and is usually tied to the main undergoing. You get little time to develop side threads/ plots as they many times do on many several seasons shows. In a way, the fast progression means that there is very little TIME to progress and develop in. And attachment and relation to the world takes time...

3) The experience of the PC themselves- they are progressing and moving so fast! In my Experience of D&D a PC levels every 10-15 hours of playing time (Approximately). This gives the player (and/ or character, it depends), little time to adjust to their new powers, skills, abilities, responsibilities, impact on the world and more. The players partly lose contact with the character themselves, as new capabilities DO have an effect on character personality at times. You can do more, you affect more, and that affects you. But the rapid change is not something all can get accustomed to easily.

My group have a mix of people from their roleplay investment prospective. Roughly speaking, 2 are more hack and slash, and 2 like to develop and interact with the world quite extensively. But even these two feel it is hard to play in such a rapidly changing progression.

For this... I find the normal progression of D&D... problematic for the type of game I would like to play. It seems to fit fast developing heroes, but at the expanse of a lesser degree of world involvement. PF has the slow progression track that I have not tired yet, and it may affect this. E6 is lovely in that regard I think, but currently I'm looking to experience Fate core more. Even though we had a lot of problems running it (It requires different frame of thinking than Gamist games do), there was a markedly more involvement, definitely from the players more inclined to it, but even from the less interested in roleplay, (Not much, but some).

So this was my observation so far. I assume it might have been obvious for some, who may say "Yeah, so what's your point?" but to me it wasn't, and I thought to share, and perhaps discuss. The rate of progression is not ALL that matters to the type of game you want to play, but to me it was interesting to see how it did affect it.

Thanks for reading,
Kol.

Tengu_temp
2014-09-03, 08:35 AM
I think you have it pat down why most RPGs these days don't follow the "meteoric rise" advancement. It's detrimental to verisimilitude, and many players, myself included, prefer when the power level of a game remains mostly consistent all the way through, starting at some set point and rising at a slow rate.

Advancement, however, is still important, as it represents your character learning new things over time. And getting new things is fun. Especially when those new things are new abilities - not numerical increases, but things you simply couldn't do before.

Also, there's one thing you haven't mentioned - different types of levelling depending on how XP works:
1. In DND, and a few other games, you simply amass experience, which on its own does nothing, until you have enough to gain a level, when suddenly all aspects of your character improve in one single jump.
2. In most games, you spend the experience you gained to upgrade your various abilities, or buy new ones, one at a time. Some of those games have levels, but they work differently than in DND - usually they give you access to new stuff when you reach the necessary requirements for the new level.
3. In some other games, mostly newschool indie ones, your abilities are mostly set in stone, and an experience system either doesn't exist, or you use it in different ways. Fate, where you slowly gain or change aspects, is here, and so it Don't Rest Your Head where you can spend the scars you earned on temporary bonuses.

In general, I vastly prefer the second model of character advancement to the first, since it results in a much more gradual, naturally flowing advancement, and gets rid of the "being a master physicist makes you very tough and good at combat" problem. The third model is good for some games, but not all.

Garimeth
2014-09-03, 08:49 AM
Good post!

I actually moved away from using experience quite some time ago in my d20 games for just these same reasons. I just informed the players of when they level up, and I tell them ahead of time that the levelling process is going to be slower. Probably could be problematic with some groups, but my guys all know how I run games and they like the stories we create together.

Cureently I am running 13th Age, and we love it, but I want to check out Burning Wheel, Fate, and Savage Worlds also.