The paradox of challenge in RPGs

[Telok]

Personally, I actually feel like the "GM bar" is a little higher with systems that don't have mechanical progression, because it means having any sense of achievement is dependent on the GM creating the opportunity and presenting it in a way that feels meaningful. With D&D, you can at least have some feeling of change when the GM isn't doing that.

I think my issue with the current state of D&D is more that "advancement" is just bigger combat numbers unless you're casting spells. With the focus on the concepts of fair or level appropriate fights the combat number inflation has the feeling of a weak illusion of improvement. I've come to prefer systems that offers all characters options and advancement beyond combat.

[King of Nowhere]

While there's nothing wrong with systems that have flat power curves, I'm sort of confused why multiple people are posting them as the answer to progression feeling fake and high-level quests being too much a reskin of low-level ones.

"Clear out quasi-Tarrasque clones from the archmage's subterranean storage area? Isn't this just killing rats in the basement with bigger numbers?"
"I hear you, that sounds dumb. Let's ditch the bigger numbers so you can just stick to killing rats in basements."

Like - changing the scope of gameplay, having a wider variety of challenge types, giving connections and social matters a larger role - all good things. None of which are dependent on whether the power curve is flat or steep.

yeah, removing the power curve is not going to help with anything.
On the other hand, if there is no power curve, then there is no expectation of progression. people may be happy sticking to rats in basements forever.
A game with leveling up gives the idea that there will be progress, if then the game fails to meet this expectation it's bad. whether it actually meets the expectation of progress depends mostly on the judgment of the guy playing it.

Personally, I actually feel like the "GM bar" is a little higher with systems that don't have mechanical progression, because it means having any sense of achievement is dependent on the GM creating the opportunity and presenting it in a way that feels meaningful. With D&D, you can at least have some feeling of change when the GM isn't doing that.

personally, i think the reverse holds. a mechanical progression means that setting up an encounter for level 1 or for level 10 or for level 20 are entirely different things and you have to know them all. you also have to make a world where a single level 20 guy can destroy a whole army of mooks without effort, and you have to figure out a way to make it consistent.
Don't get me wrong, i like mechanical progression, but it makes my job more difficult

[Tanarii]

On the other hand, if there is no power curve, then there is no expectation of progression. people may be happy sticking to rats in basements forever.

Thats not how games without power curves work.

[Telok]

Thats not how games without power curves work.

Paranoia dosen't have power curves but I've been thinking about pucking up the splats that support the party being green IntSec goons or ultraviolet High Programmers. Champions dosen't have a power curve, your superhero characters just buy up whatever stats/abilities. Pendragon campaigns can easily be multi-generational, an effect of the one big adventure a year with court & romance stuff in the off season, and I don't even know how you'd map that to a power curve. Anyone want to chime in on stuff like Fate or BitD?

[kyoryu]

Thats not how games without power curves work.

Right.

Specifically:

1) Most games without that level of advancement start you at a "heroic" point fairly quickly
2) Most games have some advancement, it's just not as severe.

Think most TV shows or movies. The characters start out competent, and might get slightly more competent over time but not drastically so. They don't start out killing rats and end up killing Gods.

[Talakeal]

My system has a much flatter power curve than D&D, and if anything I think that actually makes the problem worse, not better, as things you do remain relevant for far longer.

For example, missing out on a treasure hoard means a lot less if the character's expected wealth doubles every session.

It shouldn't just be bigger numbers - it should be more and more complex options.

At level 1 (metaphorically) you're hitting things with a sword.

At level 20 you're looking at positioning, and selecting between a number of maneuvers based on the situation, applying effects and utilizing others, etc.

This is kind of what I hate, games which don't let lower level characters have choices and which gate all the cool stuff behind tons of playtime that may never even pay off.

[kyoryu]

This is kind of what I hate, games which don't let lower level characters have choices and which gate all the cool stuff behind tons of playtime that may never even pay off.

You can definitely take it too far!

[Morgaln]

Question, what about an encounter where the players own choices lead to their own demise?

Should the GM save them from the consequences of their decisions?

Like, for example, if the wizard chooses nothing but fire spells, and then the party gets wrecked by a fire immune monster, who is to blame here?

I still owe you an answer to this. My incredibly helpful answer is. it depends :P

1. Was the player aware fire immunity is a thing? A new player might well have picked just fire spells because they thought that sounded cool. They might not be aware that their choices might make them useless in a given situation. In that case, I would give part of the blame to the GM for not helping that player understand the consequences beforehand. If it is a seasoned player who is aware their one trick can be shut down, it's on their own head when they run into trouble.

2. Did the players have a choice in facing the enounter or was it sprung on them? If they didn't have the choice, the GM did make the decision of forcing an encounter where they know the wizard would be useless. Then the GM does share blame; otherwise, see point 3.

3. Was it telegraphed somehow that this creature might be immune to fire? If for example it's made from fire, living in an active volcano or breathing fire, that could be seen as ample warning that fire might not be the best choice in fighting that particular monster. However, how clear the warning is might vary from player to player, and again, experience plays a big role here. But if the players went into that encounter knowing full well that their wizard would likely be useless (I assume everyone knows they only have fire spells available), then again, the GM did what they could to warn them.

In general, however, the question is whether the whole party should be punished because one player chose poorly in designing their character. Again, experience is a big factor here. If it is an inexperienced group that has a hard time judging what's an appropriate encounter and what isn't, I as a GM would give them the opportunity to escape from that encounter instead of wrecking them completely. I'll also throw in a few hints that they are outclassed during the encounter if I couldn't deter them from going there in the first place. For an experienced group that knew what they were getting into, suffer the consequences of your actions and learn from them. Either way, I would likely talk to the group afterwards to find out whether they just didn't get my hints (blame partly on me for being too subtle) or whether they chose to just ignore them (not my fault, then).

[Talakeal]

I still owe you an answer to this. My incredibly helpful answer is. it depends :P

1. Was the player aware fire immunity is a thing? A new player might well have picked just fire spells because they thought that sounded cool. They might not be aware that their choices might make them useless in a given situation. In that case, I would give part of the blame to the GM for not helping that player understand the consequences beforehand. If it is a seasoned player who is aware their one trick can be shut down, it's on their own head when they run into trouble.

2. Did the players have a choice in facing the enounter or was it sprung on them? If they didn't have the choice, the GM did make the decision of forcing an encounter where they know the wizard would be useless. Then the GM does share blame; otherwise, see point 3.

3. Was it telegraphed somehow that this creature might be immune to fire? If for example it's made from fire, living in an active volcano or breathing fire, that could be seen as ample warning that fire might not be the best choice in fighting that particular monster. However, how clear the warning is might vary from player to player, and again, experience plays a big role here. But if the players went into that encounter knowing full well that their wizard would likely be useless (I assume everyone knows they only have fire spells available), then again, the GM did what they could to warn them.

In general, however, the question is whether the whole party should be punished because one player chose poorly in designing their character. Again, experience is a big factor here. If it is an inexperienced group that has a hard time judging what's an appropriate encounter and what isn't, I as a GM would give them the opportunity to escape from that encounter instead of wrecking them completely. I'll also throw in a few hints that they are outclassed during the encounter if I couldn't deter them from going there in the first place. For an experienced group that knew what they were getting into, suffer the consequences of your actions and learn from them. Either way, I would likely talk to the group afterwards to find out whether they just didn't get my hints (blame partly on me for being too subtle) or whether they chose to just ignore them (not my fault, then).

Thank you for the detailed response, but I think we kind of talked past one another. I wasn’t really talking about blame, or punishment, or one player screwing lver the group.

I was asking if the DM should balance the encounters with PCs builds in mind to preserve “combat as sport,” or whether they should be build neutral in order to preserve verisimilitude.

The former creates a more balanced game, but imo also deprives the players of some agency.

[Morgaln]

Thank you for the detailed response, but I think we kind of talked past one another. I wasn’t really talking about blame, or punishment, or one player screwing lver the group.

I was asking if the DM should balance the encounters with PCs builds in mind to preserve “combat as sport,” or whether they should be build neutral in order to preserve verisimilitude.

The former creates a more balanced game, but imo also deprives the players of some agency.

Ah, I see. Since I was talking about responsibilities of the GM before, I thought you were referring to that, my bad.

I think the answer, again, depends. If you're playing more of a sandbox game, where the players can pick and choose what to engage, I think you should build neutral. Make sure the player have some idea of what a certain challenge entails so they can make an informed guess whether they can deal with it. It's also advisable to tell your players that you are doing this and that not every challenge might be designed specifically so they can overcome it.
However, if you have more of a linear game where the players have to engage specific threats, I'd tailor those towards the group to some extent. In that case, I wouldn't pick a fire immune monster since it takes one character completely out of the game, and that wouldn't be enjoyable. I might use a fire resistant monster, however, in order to encourage that player to broaden their build and maybe give some other characters more opportunity to shine.

[Mrark]

It shouldn't just be bigger numbers - it should be more and more complex options.

That's exactly what I meant.

[Xervous]

I don’t know if the options themselves need to be more complex. If you’re adding simple new mechanics you already have potential geometric game complexity growth due to interacting mechanics. Even something as simple as “these rats explode on death” changes the way a party might interact with the scenario. While it is true that MMOs and something like Monster Hunter make heavy use of numeric progression they also feature layers of added mechanics between the tiers that composes the actual difficulty players have to overcome.

D&D has little in the way of mechanical interaction, tending to focus on narrow counters prepared in advance or universally applicable beating with stick. And that’s fine, mechanical interactions take time to resolve, not everyone has the time, aptitude and/or patience to manage something like Shadowrun 3e dicepools. In the end the game has to be playable, and D&D has demonstrated that the high end complexity of 3.5e is simply beyond the time investment that most potential players are willing to give.

If the main thing changing about the PCs is that their numbers grow it comes down to a matter of framing and presentation. If most other fixtures of the world remain static and the players get a chance to revisit, they’ll find the goblins pushovers when they were a threat before, the mafia will have a harder time undermining the party’s public speaking attempts, the hazardous river they swam across will be as much worry as a puddle. Short of being replaced for good setting or plot related reasons these obstacles should persist at their initial power level while the players progress. The bandits don’t suddenly all walk around in mithril, a river doesn’t grow deeper and wider just like that, and the mafia instigators in the crowd don’t magically find themselves highly proficient at scholarly debate. Numbers that were too big for the players to challenge before now become options. Of course it remains up to the GM to use the escalating numbers to frame something more entertaining than slaying 5 mountain rats.

[kyoryu]

I don’t know if the options themselves need to be more complex.

True to an extent, though I do think some complexity can be added over time. The situations and other effects can be more complex instead, which also avoids some of the risk of combinatorial explosion.

I don’t know if the options themselves need to be more complex.

something like Monster Hunter make heavy use of numeric progression they also feature layers of added mechanics between the tiers that composes the actual difficulty players have to overcome. [/quote]

Agreed 100%, and yay MH.

I don’t know if the options themselves need to be more complex.

D&D has little in the way of mechanical interaction, tending to focus on narrow counters prepared in advance or universally applicable beating with stick. And that’s fine, mechanical interactions take time to resolve, not everyone has the time, aptitude and/or patience to manage something like Shadowrun 3e dicepools. In the end the game has to be playable, and D&D has demonstrated that the high end complexity of 3.5e is simply beyond the time investment that most potential players are willing to give. [/quote]

There's also things like trolls and other monsters that have other mechanical effects on them.

[Xervous]

There's also things like trolls and other monsters that have other mechanical effects on them.

I’d lump trolls in with D&Ds other checkbox preparation. You either have acid and fire or you don’t (like bringing the correct element for Monster Hunter). If trolls only could regenerate the first N hits each round that invites some basic strategy adaptations, if not interactions. The wizard casts magic missile to produce multiple hits, the fighter goes TWF to push past the threshold, the cleric drops an effect to help single out the trolls one at a time (everyone focuses the suboptimal monster hit zone to get a part break for loot or disabling an annoying attack).

[kyoryu]

I’d lump trolls in with D&Ds other checkbox preparation. You either have acid and fire or you don’t (like bringing the correct element for Monster Hunter). If trolls only could regenerate the first N hits each round that invites some basic strategy adaptations, if not interactions. The wizard casts magic missile to produce multiple hits, the fighter goes TWF to push past the threshold, the cleric drops an effect to help single out the trolls one at a time (everyone focuses the suboptimal monster hit zone to get a part break for loot or disabling an annoying attack).

Fair enough.

You could make a Better Troll by allowing it to be hit, but hitting it with fire would, at that point, cause its HP regen level to be set at that level.

Like, a troll has 40 hp. You do 10 hp, and it heals 5 a round. Yay, it heals! But if you hit it with fire when it's at 30hp, it's max regen will be 30hp.

Now you've got some strategy, switching between damage and preventing healing, which mixes up what you need to do.

Stuff like that.

And physical damage works for everything in MH :)

[Xervous]

And physical damage works for everything in MH :)

World’s alatreon begs to differ, plus the scattered elemental-only part breaks across games. But yeah, mostly the modern elementally unstable dps check.

[kyoryu]

World’s alatreon begs to differ, plus the scattered elemental-only part breaks across games. But yeah, mostly the modern elementally unstable dps check.

Yeah, fair 'nuff.

I need to play some more MH now. Stupid work!

[Cluedrew]

To quote 2D8HP who was paraphrasing someone else: "Work is the scourge of the gaming class."

On topic... my main reword in my games for doing well is better narrative outcomes which can lead to snowballing success but much less often than just getting stronger.

Oh and someone asked how progression works in Blades in the Dark. Blades in the Dark has two main types of progression, character progression and gang progression (you play thieves). New characters always start at "level 1" but gang bonuses account for some of your power, likely enough they aren't completely left behind. Also, characters are forced to retire eventually and giving them happy endings do take resources so that reduces the power feedback loop a bit. Plus you can pick your targets because it is all one city so getting powerful faster isn't an issue.

[KineticDiplomat]

Re: flat curves. I believe there is a misunderstanding going on here based on D&Disms. D&D is some mediocre mechanics tied to a Punch Things so You May Graduate to Punching Bigger Things Harder game. A looter shooter if you will. Take away the loot and the bigger numbers from a looter shooter and you don’t have much left. When people hear flat curve and only know D&D they just imagine D&Ds boring mechanics used in rats ad infinity.
We’ve had posters in this thread say as much.

But that’s not how flat curve games work. They generally create challenges independent of the loot-shoot cycle. Let’s look at a few examples:

1. Traveller. You usually come out of chargen as a reasonably competent professional whatever. Very much firefly scaled. Growth is slow and geometrically harder for advancing each skill. But the game isn’t about that: it’s about solving problems, so many different problems, as reasonably human scaled power. You may need to figure out a way to take an aging holo star on a publicity tour without a single firefight, you may have to decide how far you’ll go if being asked to heave to for inspection by what you expect are corrupt local forces where a fight will be a Pyrrhic victory at best, you might need to negotiate the big trade, or show up as big damn heroes for an orbital in distress. The challenge and the fun are based on the situation, not the punch ever harder cycle.

2. Blade of the Iron Throne. You start at the level of most sword and sorcery or low fantasy protagonists. You improve very slowly if you even remember to do so. But the challenge comes form the fact that while you’re almost always better than one mook, you aren’t better than ten of them, and when you get into duels with names NPCs it’s always a dramatic game where player decisions matter. The combat challenge comes from fighting smart, whether it’s in a barroom brawl, a mad dash to kill the senator before his guards can arrive, or a formal duel at dawn. T he story fun comes from each character’s personal story and wants driving the plot, not “and eventually you must fight god!”

3. Shadow run. You start as pretty much elite. There’s a good chance you will never fight someone as good as you pound for pound. The challenge is how do you use your elite status to win in a system where the masses belong to the other side and no matter how much you want to wage a war, shooting your way out of the problem is mostly just a way to buy time or open opportunities. The fun is putting together the run to get away with it.

None of those follow the DND model. They all possess challenge. They all possess fun. But that’s because they aren’t D&D with the serial numbers filed off; they typically have better systems, wider options, more nuanced and personalized stories. All the areas d&d passes on to create its looter shooter mechanic. So don’t think “the worst parts of D&D” when you hear flat curve, think “probably better than d&d at everything other than zero to demigod”

[icefractal]

So I've only played Traveler a bit (in one shots, so the progression curve or lack thereof was irrelevant), and I haven't played Blade of the Iron Throne, but I have played Shadowrun.

An it can be fun, it certainly does something different than D&D, but it's not the flatter progression that makes it fun. Never have I thought, when playing: "Wow, the fact that our characters are relatively similar in power to when we started the campaign is really what made this session awesome. It would have sucked if we'd been significantly stronger."

So while - again - I don't see flatter progression as a bad thing, I don't see it as a good thing either. It's just ... a thing. It's better suited for some premises and worse for others. And I don't think it's immune to the issue in the OP either.

Heck, I've been in Shadowrun sessions that turned somewhat acrimonious, because of the "scale / don't scale" question the OP brings up. In one case, after some actions that put us significantly ahead of schedule, the GM felt like having the rest of the run be too easy would be dull and escalated the threat. Some of the players felt like that change negated our previous actions and there wasn't any point in preparation / plans if it was going to end up the same difficulty anyway. Result: discord.

[KineticDiplomat]

That’s some pink Mohawk magic-run...generally I’ve found in Shadowrun the goal is to keep it out of situations that might turn into a situation where power is involved. If the PCs have bypassed that, that’s a good thing.

It’s not that a flatter power curve is 105% immune to power issues, but it does generally avoid a whole series of precision balancing acts required by D&D and geometric curves. You don’t need carefully calculated challenge ratings and exp per encounter and wealth per level and all the rest of it with just one level here or one over/under reward there possibly having game breaking consequences. You can still break the game, but generally not in a recursive loop ala D&D.

As for better...I tend to think games that know what they want to feel like and calibrate their power accordingly become far, far more enjoyable than D&D’s need to try to rationalize and balance everything into a system where you start as a turnip farmer and end killing gods. Some of that is subjective, some of it is an objective fact that by narrowing the scope designers have the potential (which they don’t always use) to build mechanics appropriate to that specific scope.

[Tanarii]

It’s not that a flatter power curve is 105% immune to power issues, but it does generally avoid a whole series of precision balancing acts required by D&D and geometric curves. You don’t need carefully calculated challenge ratings and exp per encounter and wealth per level and all the rest of it with just one level here or one over/under reward there possibly having game breaking consequences. You can still break the game, but generally not in a recursive loop ala D&D.

I mean, D&D doesn't generally require those things either. The closest it's ever come was in 4e. You can have a wide variety of levels in a party without breaking the game.

[Squire Doodad]

Its human nature that we want to be rewarded for success and punished for failure. But in an RPG, rewards and punishments almost always translate into player power. This means that taking an early lead will often result in a Monte Haul campaign where the players don't need to engage their brains to succeed, and a few early setbacks can lead into a death spiral where failure is the only possibility.

But what other system is there?

Do we need to implement some sort of metagame handicap system when designing adventures? Or would this make it feel even worse?

I have had some people tell me that it is a good idea to play the monsters smarter when the PCs are having an easy time and to play them dumber when the PCs struggle, but I have also had people tell me never to do this as it is tantamount to metagaming and punishes the players for their success.

Thoughts?

Now, is this for a video game, or for a tabletop game? In a tabletop game with you at the helm, you can always design a new situation that challenges players, or scale up one that already exists.


For a video game, the main problem revolves around that if someone grinds, they will eventually have too much power. That said, if level costs and boosts go up seemingly exponentially, then the player is obligated to fight everything, which can be tiring. This is especially true of repeat playthroughs.
I have found that for games, the best way to do this is to
a) make levels relatively unimportant; numbers go up but stats boosts are slow. A level 20 character is a monster compared to a level 1, but a level 17 player in a level 25 fight has a fighting chance.
b) make an easily achievable level cap so the player both has legitimate challenges at max level and will get there easy, so they don't need to grind.
Or, if you want something completely different:
Do away with levels wholesale. Foes drop loot, gold, and other such things that the player isn't obligated to collect X of to level up. Meanwhile, upgrades are achieved after story events. Your stats go up thanks to armor dropped by the Commissioner of Lies, and completing a quest gives you skill points to bump up your gear.
I find this last one to be the most effective in designing a new game; the player gets their upgrades based on story, so you have gameplay and story integration driving your legendary hero instead of having slain enough metal slimes. This also allows for more ways to play, with low level runs and even "pacifist" runs being doable with minimum kills since you still get the same amount and loose placing of boosts.

If you do want to make a traditional level up system, a low impact one is probably best, and probably one where all foes give points which add up to a low number instead of a curve. Think of Paper Mario and The Thousand Year Door.

[King of Nowhere]

Re: flat curves. I believe there is a misunderstanding going on here based on D&Disms. D&D is some mediocre mechanics tied to a Punch Things so You May Graduate to Punching Bigger Things Harder game. A looter shooter if you will. Take away the loot and the bigger numbers from a looter shooter and you don’t have much left. When people hear flat curve and only know D&D they just imagine D&Ds boring mechanics used in rats ad infinity.
We’ve had posters in this thread say as much.
But that’s not how flat curve games work.

that's not how d&d works either. at least, that's not how i play it at my table, and that's not how most people play them at their table

They generally create challenges independent of the loot-shoot cycle. Let’s look at a few examples:

1. Traveller. You usually come out of chargen as a reasonably competent professional whatever. [...] But the game isn’t about that: it’s about solving problems, so many different problems, as reasonably human scaled power.

so is a d&d campaign, only you have different resources

2. Blade of the Iron Throne. [...]the challenge comes form the fact that while you’re almost always better than one mook, you aren’t better than ten of them, and when you get into duels with names NPCs it’s always a dramatic game where player decisions matter. The combat challenge comes from fighting smart, whether it’s in a barroom brawl, a mad dash to kill the senator before his guards can arrive, or a formal duel at dawn. The story fun comes from each character’s personal story and wants driving the plot, not “and eventually you must fight god!”

this also fits the description of my campaigns. except that one player decided he wants to overthrow the gods, but while that will certainly require many levels, it's not just a matter of "keep grinding until you get past level 80"

3. Shadow run. You start as pretty much elite. There’s a good chance you will never fight someone as good as you pound for pound. The challenge is how do you use your elite status to win in a system where the masses belong to the other side and no matter how much you want to wage a war, shooting your way out of the problem is mostly just a way to buy time or open opportunities.

this also describes very well my normal d&d experience.

None of those follow the DND model. They all possess challenge. They all possess fun. But that’s because they aren’t D&D with the serial numbers filed off; they typically have better systems, wider options, more nuanced and personalized stories. All the areas d&d passes on to create its looter shooter mechanic. So don’t think “the worst parts of D&D” when you hear flat curve, think “probably better than d&d at everything other than zero to demigod”

I don't know those systems, but I am having a hard time accepting that. "wider options"? "more nuanced and personalized stories"? you already can do anything you want with a d&d story. how can you have more option than literal infinity? sure, the rule set of d&d supports mostly the looter shooter approach, but that doesn't have to be a limitation.

In fact, it is a fallacy i often see in this section of the forum, the idea that to do something well you need the right system to support it. Which is not completely wrong, but it is vastly overstated. If you want to tell a creative story, you don't need good rules; you need a creative group and an open-minded dm, and then you can rule 0 any problem. Also, you learn to do more things with a system if you have system mastery; which you won't get if you change a new system for every campaign as a prerequisite for trying new things.

[Batcathat]

In fact, it is a fallacy i often see in this section of the forum, the idea that to do something well you need the right system to support it. Which is not completely wrong, but it is vastly overstated. If you want to tell a creative story, you don't need good rules; you need a creative group and an open-minded dm, and then you can rule 0 any problem. Also, you learn to do more things with a system if you have system mastery; which you won't get if you change a new system for every campaign as a prerequisite for trying new things.

Sure, you can probably tell (almost) any kind of story with D&D, but at some point you're trying to fit a triangular piece in a square hole. If you try hard enough it might sort of work, but it's probably easier to just find a square piece. Different systems are good at different things, so why not use them for different things?

[kyoryu]

Sure, you can probably tell (almost) any kind of story with D&D, but at some point you're trying to fit a triangular piece in a square hole. If you try hard enough it might sort of work, but it's probably easier to just find a square piece. Different systems are good at different things, so why not use them for different things?

This is just a restatement of the Oberoni Fallacy, really.

[KineticDiplomat]

Given OPs specific opening post involves the issue of “if players do well they outpower D&D quickly, if not they death spiral” I think that combined with a long history of levels, CRs, level-appropriate encounters, XP per day/encounter charts, level appropriate wealth guides, level appropriate magic items...we can say that yes, D&D revolves far more around needing to accurately balance progression than most.

Can you screw up other games that way? I’m sure you can. But neither the extremely rapid progress of D&D nor the near exponential returns on “leveling” are in flatter systems, so the propensity for the original issue is far less.

As to people who say they don’t play D&D as a looter-shooter that scales up in power rapidly...what D&D could you possibly be playing that still looks anything like the original? You level in 2-4 sessions, primarily by killing things. Upon leveling you are roughly twice as powerful as you were before. To stay competitive and not die, you typically need loot supporting that progression. The scale perforce changes very rapidly. It is nearly mathematically impossible for you to play D&D “at so-and-so’s table” in such a manner as to not cause substantial shifts in the power context.

As to “I can use d&d for ANY story!”, I can use an axe as a hammer, screwdriver, knife, measuring stick, and marking device - I have in fact used one as all of those at some point or another - but this does not make it a very good solution for hanging pictures on my walls. It has objectively poor social rules. It has objectively mediocre combat for anything not magic. It’s magic is a subject of much debate, but is rigid and deterministic. If it’s not stealth, perception, or trap related there isn’t much happening for other actions. What it does better than anyone else is take you from peasant to demigod as fast as practical. Is it really surprising that it isn’t very good outside that context?

[Tanarii]

Given OPs specific opening post involves the issue of “if players do well they outpower D&D quickly, if not they death spiral” I think that combined with a long history of levels, CRs, level-appropriate encounters, XP per day/encounter charts, level appropriate wealth guides, level appropriate magic items...we can say that yes, D&D revolves far more around needing to accurately balance progression than most.

No, it doesn't. Even 4e has considerable latitude in level range of a party.

And that's before we even get into discussion about the wide variety in builds, Magic items, etc.

Don't mix up rough guidelines for DMs with requirements for progression.

[KineticDiplomat]

“No it doesn’t?” To be clear you’re saying “D&D does not need to balance progression more than most RPGs” since the back half of that is the statement you’re refuting. So, in a short list of other common RPGs where progression causes much less inherent change in the power dynamic per session:

-World of Darkness. All of them.
-Traveller
-Savage Worlds
-Any PbtA modules
-Blades in the Dark
-Cyberpunk
-Shadowrun
-Mouseguard
-WHFRP, DH, etc (this one is closest)
-Call of Cthulhu
-Delta Green
-Twilight 2000
-Flashing Blades
-Riddle of Steel/BoiT
-Eclipse Phase (the setting allows for absurd power, but not as a matter of leveling)
-Nobilis

As far as I know, none of those systems proceed to double your power every two to four sessions, or have one two session burst substantially alter the relative power balance of opposition. None of them need to give the DM a “if you don’t give this, or give too much of that, you’ll break the finally balanced system” guides. They don’t come with “this adventure segment is only really good for levels 4-6” as warning labels.

Can someone min-max ad absurdum to fight a level 10 with a level 8 in D&D? Yeah, someone can. Someone is cack-handed enough to lose the reverse as well. But assuming reasonable in tolerance player and GM actions? Not bloody likely. So a few mistakes and then you’re in OPs problem.

[Tanarii]

As far as I know, none of those systems proceed to double your power every two to four sessions, or have one two session burst substantially alter the relative power balance of opposition. None of them need to give the DM a “if you don’t give this, or give too much of that, you’ll break the finally balanced system” guides. They don’t come with “this adventure segment is only really good for levels 4-6” as warning labels.

D&D doesnt do the first two of those either. What they have is some recommendations. And the last is that too, although it also comes with "if your party size is a to b characters".

None of it is "or the finely balanced game breaks'

That said, there are things you can do to break balance in each edition. For example some parts of 5e kinda breaks if you do a single battle per long rest with no short rests. And I wouldnt want to put level 2s with level 18s in any edition. But heck, most games you wouldnt want to put characters with dozens of sessions of power gains woth ones just starting.