Low Character Growth Game

[Grytorm]

Would you enjoy a game where characters stay mostly the same throughout their career as a character with minimal advancement. You start with a well developed set of abilities and specialties. Options available for an apprentice who will grow in power as the story continues but overall mostly the people stay mostly the same.

[AMFV]

There are systems where this is the assumption. If you force it on a system where that's not the case it's often not as fun as you'd expect.

[SowZ]

Would you enjoy a game where characters stay mostly the same throughout their career as a character with minimal advancement. You start with a well developed set of abilities and specialties. Options available for an apprentice who will grow in power as the story continues but overall mostly the people stay mostly the same.

There's E6 D&D games where you start at level 6 and can never level up, but gain feats occasionally. In WoD based games you CAN gain significant power, but it takes a long time and in my experience you end the game pretty similar to how it began.

[Rhynn]

There are systems where this is the assumption. If you force it on a system where that's not the case it's often not as fun as you'd expect.

Traveller is a fairly famous example, being an old, old RPG.

IMO numbers don't always have to go up, but it depends on the game. The more important your numbers are in play, the more importance you attach to increasing them.

[Ravens_cry]

I am amiable to this, even enjoy it, IF the fluff of my character experiences growth. Interacting and forming connections with the world and characters there in can be a very rewarding thing in and of itself. Frankly, I dislike leveling up too fast. It just feels like I never earned those levels. If, however, it's merely a dungeon fest (or the local equivalent), thanks but no thanks.

[AMFV]

Traveller is a fairly famous example, being an old, old RPG.

IMO numbers don't always have to go up, but it depends on the game. The more important your numbers are in play, the more importance you attach to increasing them.

I've always wanted to play Traveller. The character creation system is very rich. You can definitely tell that it would be something that wouldn't necessarily need that much building on, since it feels like the characters are already professionals.

I disagree with the second statement on a couple of counts, the numbers can matter but increasing them is not necessarily more important unless the enemies are also increasing. You can have systems where you get more tricks or whatnot, without increasing numbers.

Edit: E6 is an example of a system where the numbers matter and there isn't much advancement after a certain point.

[BWR]

It all depends on the type of game and to a lesser extent the system used.
No character advancement works poorly for most classic D&D type games, where you are expected to get better and take on bigger threats. I can't imagine it very fun to defend the same village from goblons all your life (to exaggerate). Slow advancement is fine. In ourt first Dragonlance campaign we spent nearly 10 years going from level 1 to 12, but there was advancement, and that was important.

I haven't actually played many games with no advancement, not counting one-session games, and but those I have were definitely ones where mechanics were way less important than RP and story.

[Zavoniki]

It can be interesting.

I ran a game where the players were the crew of humanities first space ship and they went and explored the galaxy. I completely forgot about giving out XP so everyone stayed exactly the same mechanics wise for the whole game. It was still fun, though their ship did get upgraded several times. I think you have to match your low growth to the setting and themes your trying to achieve.

[Mastikator]

Sure, as long as there is story progression and social mobility.

[SowZ]

It all depends on the type of game and to a lesser extent the system used.
No character advancement works poorly for most classic D&D type games, where you are expected to get better and take on bigger threats. I can't imagine it very fun to defend the same village from goblons all your life (to exaggerate). Slow advancement is fine. In ourt first Dragonlance campaign we spent nearly 10 years going from level 1 to 12, but there was advancement, and that was important.

I haven't actually played many games with no advancement, not counting one-session games, and but those I have were definitely ones where mechanics were way less important than RP and story.

Games with smaller gaps between weak and strong foes, or where most of your power comes through gear/how many allies you gain/influence based social maneuvers, work best for low character growth games. In a D&D type game, it is expected that a starting character literally cannot touch level 12 Hero-King McBAstein.

In something like Traveller, I'd guess even the General of the super soldier army can be killed by starting characters if they play their cards right,. (I've never played Traveller.)

[Talakeal]

I would love to play in such a game.

Other people, not so much.

There is one player in my group who says that character advancement is literally the only part of the game he enjoys, and once he hits level cap he retires his character at the end of the session.

It is very annoying, as no one (including him) has any interest in playing an epic game, so once we hit level 20 the it is time to start a new game even though there is years left full of potential stories to be told and character growth (as in RP rather power growth) for those characters.

[Yora]

Sure, as long as there is story progression and social mobility.

I think that's the important part. The campaign needs to have some kind of progress and advancement. Advancing in personal power isn't neccessarily required. In many games, the characters can become a lot more capable simply by getting access to better equipment.
And I think to some degree, paying too much attention to special abilities distracts from the element of story-progress. Which is why I switched from Pathfinder to Castles & Crusades. XP doesn't get you very much and even treasure has its limits in how much you get out of it. So to the players, defeating all enemies and taking their stuff isn't neccessarily the prefered course of action and there is much more incentive for trickery and negotiation.

[SowZ]

I would love to play in such a game.

Other people, not so much.

There is one player in my group who says that character advancement is literally the only part of the game he enjoys, and once he hits level cap he retires his character at the end of the session.

It is very annoying, as no one (including him) has any interest in playing an epic game, so once we hit level 20 the it is time to start a new game even though there is years left full of potential stories to be told and character growth (as in RP rather power growth) for those characters.

Is he opposed to an E6 style game? Where once you hit level cap, you can keep gaining feats? Shoot, you could do an E20 set up where once you hit 20, you don't level up anymore, but every so much XP you can take an Epic Feat if you meet the pre-reqs or two normal feats otherwise? Seems a fair balance to me.

(But from what I hear and have read, all you players aren't what most would call... Reasonable.)

[tensai_oni]

Except for Legend of the Wulin, I play low character growth games almost exclusively.

[Rhynn]

In something like Traveller, I'd guess even the General of the super soldier army can be killed by starting characters if they play their cards right,. (I've never played Traveller.)

In Traveller, the general isn't going to be nearly as tough as the super-soldiers, because that's not how real life works. (After all, if it did, surely the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be assassinating the enemy leadership personally...)

[Morty]

Honestly, there are few games that have an advancement curve as steep as D&D's. There's plenty which are as high-powered or more, but they tend to start you as already a big deal - like Scion, Exalted or whatnot. So yes, I'm perfectly fine without an immersion-breaking zero-to-hero growth.

[prufock]

Low mechanical advancement: fine in some cases, though it takes some of the fun out of it for me. I'd rather gain something, even a small bonus, each session. For example, in Mutants and Masterminds you have the option of not granting additional power points, but I prefer to give or receive 1 or 2 pp per session.

Low character development: Red flag that this will be a poor game.

[AMFV]

Low mechanical advancement: fine in some cases, though it takes some of the fun out of it for me. I'd rather gain something, even a small bonus, each session. For example, in Mutants and Masterminds you have the option of not granting additional power points, but I prefer to give or receive 1 or 2 pp per session.

Low character development: Red flag that this will be a poor game.

Again it depends on the system, low character growth in power does not necessarily equal low or no character development. Many systems have a fundamental assumption of slower growth.

[Talakeal]

Is he opposed to an E6 style game? Where once you hit level cap, you can keep gaining feats? Shoot, you could do an E20 set up where once you hit 20, you don't level up anymore, but every so much XP you can take an Epic Feat if you meet the pre-reqs or two normal feats otherwise? Seems a fair balance to me.

(But from what I hear and have read, all you players aren't what most would call... Reasonable.)

I am going to try to propose something like this next time we play, no idea if he will bite.