XP/"Leveling": is it *REALLY* necessary?

[Geordnet]

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:

Spoiler

Show

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:

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Geordnet]

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.


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]

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]

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]

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?

[Grinner]

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:

Spoiler

Show

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

Have you tried any other RPG systems, like Savage Worlds, GURPS, or Ironclaw?

[Raineh Daze]

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.

[Eldan]

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]

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.

[Emmerask]

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]

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]

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.

[TheCountAlucard]

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 general

Careful 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!

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.

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? 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.

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]

Not necessary. Traveler. QED.

[Geordnet]

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!

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.

Both methods can be taken to excess.

[Raineh Daze]

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]

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]

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

Spoiler

Show

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

Spoiler

Show

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

Spoiler

Show

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]

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.

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]

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:

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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".

[QUOTE]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!

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.