Is there a realistic Leveling System out there...?

[Conners]

If you've read "The Order of the Stick: On the Origin of PCs" then the same question probably came to you on page 52, panels 2 to 5....
Killing kobolds and other monsters should not make you better and picking locks, or disguising, or tying ropes... Even practicing at the skill itself doesn't seem to get you ranks in it as fast...

So I was wondering: "Is there a more realistic Leveling System out there...?" Something like the Elder Scrolls games, only translated into DnD, would be good... as long as player don't jump every step to level up their Jump skill .

[Sleet]

You probably want to explore a system other than D&D if this is really what you're looking for. Skill-based systems (GURPS, Warhammer Fantasy RP, etc) can accomplish what you're talking about better than level-based systems like D&D.

[Lord Tataraus]

It depends on what you call a leveling system. if you mean just increase you capabilities then yes there are some. If you mean class-based go up a level kind then no because leveling up is inherently unrealistic, though E6 is close. If you take the second option, many skill-based systems would work though I only have significant experience with Cyberpunk 2020 and there system is when you use skills a lot you eventually get Improvement Points which you spend to increase your skills.

[sun_tzu]

What about the Basic system? Your skills have a chance of improving if you used them at some point during the game session.

[Ossian]

Quote sun tzu for truth. Whichever level progression ratio you like for your characters (1 lvl every BIG campaign, 1 lvl every "3 to 10 game sessions" 1 lvl every game year) just allow your players to add ranks in skills they have
a) studied
b) practised extensively
c) used in some very specific and difficult circumstances. If they pick always the same kind of DC 15 lock, then sorry but no extra skill ranks, or at least, no skill ranks once you get the DC 15 with a take 10 (auto success by means of experience and time to spend on the task).

It also helps to slow down the progression.
We scored various records here, and while I am not advising you to go as slow as we have manged to go (6th or 7th level PCs in 14 years of gaming...) I do think that taking it easy helps your characters do all the sorts of things they get better at, many times and in diversified circumstances. So, 1 lvl every 2 or 3 years of adventuring life (once you have hit level 3 or 4) possibly a bit faster but not that much, is ok.

O.

[Lord Zentei]

Runequest is a skill-based system that allows for fairly realistic learning. Each time you take a test on a skill, there is a chance you improve that particular skill. Combat is also handled by skill rolls. There are no abstract "experience points".

[EDIT: heh, that's what I get for not scrolling down before posting. Basic RPS is made by Chaosium, the same guys who publish Runequest. It's pretty much the same thing.]

GURPS uses a skill-based system also, though it does not require that one focus improvements to those skills that are used in play, except by DM fiat. People earn points based on play and then use these to build their characters.

As for class-and-level systems that use "realistic" advancement, I can't really recall any: it would be rather hard to do, since by their very nature, such systems lump a range of capabilities into a single statistic (specifically, your "level").

[the_tick_rules]

well i forget what book has it but it does introduce some restrictions. like a sailor can't take profession sailor while in a dessert. but most, but not all of the time, if your a lock picking rogue you'll probably do some lock picking every level.

[Kurald Galain]

Runequest is a skill-based system that allows for fairly realistic learning. Each time you take a test on a skill, there is a chance you improve that particular skill. Combat is also handled by skill rolls. There are no abstract "experience points".

I recall a similar system from Call of Ctulhu, which is also by Chaosium.

A particular quirk of that is that it encourages people to use skills they haven't used yet during the session, because that might improve them.

Although it's not a pen-and-paper RPG, I believe that Ultima Online had the realistic touch of skills decaying if you don't use them.

It would seem to be inherent to level-based systems that each levelup comes with a package of things learned or improved, regardless of whether you used those things. So there wouldn't be a realistic leveling system as the OP asks for, except for those systems that aren't actually level-based.

Come to think of it there aren't really all that many level-based non-computer RPG systems any more, or are there now? With the obvious exception of D&D (and spinoffs like Hackmaster and Munchkin RP), pretty much everything I can think of that has been published in the past decade or so has been skill-based.

[Lord Tataraus]

Come to think of it there aren't really all that many level-based non-computer RPG systems any more, or are there now? With the obvious exception of D&D (and spinoffs like Hackmaster and Munchkin RP), pretty much everything I can think of that has been published in the past decade or so has been skill-based.

I would disagree. Its just that the d20 system dominates the class-based systems so you have either d20 or skill-based so it seems like a lot of them are skill-based but that's because its not standardized like the class-based system is so there is more variety in the skill-based systems.

[Riffington]

like a sailor can't take profession sailor while in a dessert.

Even if he's sailing the pudding sea?

[Kurald Galain]

I would disagree. Its just that the d20 system dominates the class-based systems so you have either d20 or skill-based so it seems like a lot of them are skill-based but that's because its not standardized like the class-based system is so there is more variety in the skill-based systems.

Okay, I'm curious if you could name a recently released class-based system that is not a D&D spinoff?

[Lord Tataraus]

Okay, I'm curious if you could name a recently released class-based system that is not a D&D spinoff?

Firstly, define D&D spin-off. Do you mean a system that uses d20 system? I so, I explained that in the post you quoted. Otherwise the first that comes to mind is WARS RPG (because I love that game) and I'm sure I could find more given time.

Edit: What do you know? A list of the most recent d20 class-based rpgs.

[Bellmaethorion]

from reading the DMG, and PH, I got the impression that, during the roleplaying part of the game, you can make clear that you are training a skill. There was, I think, a line saying that it was up to the DM's discretion whether someone would be able to "train" in a skill(due to the presence of someone allready trained in the skill, or something of the like) and thus be able to get it. Same with multi-classing.

[Chronos]

I seem to recall an obscure (possibly optional) rule in 2nd edition, whereby you wouldn't improve your lockpicking ability by killing monsters. As I remember it, each of the four class categories (warrior, wizard, priest, and rogue) was supposed to earn XP in a different way. Warriors got XP for everything they killed, no matter how they did it, but the other classes only got XP from monsters if they killed them in class-appropriate ways. A thief, for instance, would get full XP from monsters they killed with a backstab, or defeated through some sort of trickery, and spellcasters got XP from monsters defeated using spells or other class abilities. Meanwhile, the non-warriors were also supposed to get XP for using their class abilities to defeat challenges outside of combat, so a thief would get XP for unlocking a door or disarming a trap.

[JaxGaret]

I'll post the same thing that I post whenever someone asks a question like this.

D&D does not equal realism. Deal with it.

[tyckspoon]

I seem to recall an obscure (possibly optional) rule in 2nd edition, whereby you wouldn't improve your lockpicking ability by killing monsters. As I remember it, each of the four class categories (warrior, wizard, priest, and rogue) was supposed to earn XP in a different way. Warriors got XP for everything they killed, no matter how they did it, but the other classes only got XP from monsters if they killed them in class-appropriate ways. A thief, for instance, would get full XP from monsters they killed with a backstab, or defeated through some sort of trickery, and spellcasters got XP from monsters defeated using spells or other class abilities. Meanwhile, the non-warriors were also supposed to get XP for using their class abilities to defeat challenges outside of combat, so a thief would get XP for unlocking a door or disarming a trap.

It wasn't obscure so much as, I think, largely ignored (it was optional, however.) The rules were in addition to the standard xp share. The Fighter could get xp for beating up monsters, the wizard got xp for spells cast to 'overcome problems', the priest got xp for spells that 'furthered his ethos', and the thief got xp for using his special thiefly abilities and finding treasure. Wizards and priests also got xp for crafting magic items, but with the tortuous process that was the suggested system for crafting in 2nd Ed they deserved it.

Taken to the logical extremes, wizards, thieves, and certain clerics would have no real motivation to become adventurers. The Wizard could claim xp for using his spells to manage all his daily affairs, thieves would be much safer pickpocketing random people and shoplifting trinkets while silently hiding from everybody, and clerics who followed gods concerned with things like healing could just wander around town casting Cure Light Wounds on every injury they saw.

[Iku Rex]

One simple hack I've considered is to only allow PCs to level up once/month. Or even rarer, like once/year. If they have enough XP to level more than once they have to wait an additional month+ for each level.

The DM gets to plan adventures with a fixed power level in mind. Players can use smart tactics ("let's go straight for the bad guy instead of killing every creature in his stronghold first") and not worry too much about a TPK. PCs level up only after they've had time to train, meditate, research spells and so on. Players have a reason to consider their characters' lives beyond dungeoncrawling.

[TheSteelRat]

One thing I know people've done in games I've played, regardless of system, is put a mark next to skills they've used that level of play. When they go up a level, that skill can be increased. Didn't use it? Well, no points for you. Some experience based systems give you points too for using skills (D&D does too if your DM actually throws at you social situations, traps, puzzles, and gives them an equivalent CR.)

[Kurald Galain]

One thing I know people've done in games I've played, regardless of system, is put a mark next to skills they've used that level of play. When they go up a level, that skill can be increased. Didn't use it? Well, no points for you.

That's good, but in D&D it begs the question why your reflex saving throw goes up if you didn't dodge anything during the last level.

[Indon]

What you could do, is have your players keep track of the skills they've "trained". Not just skills proper, even, but saves, weapons, armor use, and so on. For example, once your 1'st level Fighter player has "trained" in Climb, Balance, Attacking, and Withstanding Blows (fortitude), or whathaveyou, he takes his second level of Fighter and gains all of the benefits of his level.

Edit: One more thing: Carry over the "trained" stuff that wasn't used when someone gains a level, just in case that Fighter eventually wants to multiclass into Rogue, he can say he's already had experience with attacking flat-footed opponents, or tumbling, or something.

[Yahzi]

So I was wondering: "Is there a more realistic Leveling System out there...?"

No.

First, leveling is unrealistic.

Second, the way one gets better at a skill in real life is by long, arduous training. Pretty much the opposite of "exciting fun." So if someone did create a game system that handled skill improvement realistically, no one would play it.

[Bag_of_Holding]

In DMG pg 197, there's an optional rule to 'train' for skills and feats (costing 50gp and 1 week per rank of a skill, and 2 weeks for a feat).

[Sleet]

First, leveling is unrealistic.

For the most part, yes. But it's not as wildly unrealistic as it might seem; there's some Real Life research suggesting that the "epiphany" - you work hard at Activity X, gaining little, then suddenly the light bulb goes on and your skill level at Activity X increases a relatively large amount - is part of the learning process for many people.

The idea of "going up a level" seems to mirror the idea of the epiphany, to some degree at least. Of course, this doesn't explain why you get better at picking locks by slaughtering kobolds, but I think the parallel is interesting.

[Xuincherguixe]

Realism is over rated :P

That being said, you could always say that one doesn't get any extra abilities suddenly after beating enough monsters. And, that they train during the down time between dungeon crawls.

I think it mentions something like that somewhere too.

[JaxGaret]

Leveling up is just a game construct that allows a player to simply keep track of their character's progress. In the game world, the character is learning new things all the time, but the game is designed with only 20 levels in mind. 100 levels would make the progress from level to level more "realistic", but it would still be a game construct approximation. To reflect reality, you would need an infinite number of levels that encompass training, ability, regression of skills due to non-use, hourly/daily/monthly/yearly ebbs and flows of energy and potential, where the sun is in the sky, what the character has eaten/drunk lately, and myriad other factors that the D&D system just doesn't keep any tracking for.

In other words, D&D does not equal realism. Deal with it.

[Chronos]

Second, the way one gets better at a skill in real life is by long, arduous training. Pretty much the opposite of "exciting fun." So if someone did create a game system that handled skill improvement realistically, no one would play it.

You'd be surprised. Some MMOs use a system like that for skills, and some folks seem to love it. I once heard a friend say something to the effect of "I only have to smelt 1600 more copper bars before my Smithing skill is high enough that I can start smelting iron bars".

Of course, that level of bookkeeping would be impractical without a computer, and smithing isn't really what D&D is trying to model in the first place.

[MrNexx]

Earthdawn. What Circle you are is determined, in part, by what level your talents are at, not the other way around. You could stay at 1st circle forever, just increasing your talents, but never learning the higher-level talents. Or you could find a comfortable circle and sit there for a while, spending legend points to increase talents you had to miss before.

[Mewtarthio]

You'd be surprised. Some MMOs use a system like that for skills, and some folks seem to love it. I once heard a friend say something to the effect of "I only have to smelt 1600 more copper bars before my Smithing skill is high enough that I can start smelting iron bars".

Wow. I'd make a snide remark, but I'm actually kind of jealous. I have to go through all the trouble of working out how to budget my time to explore games like Morrowind and Metroid Prime as thoroughly as possible, with the knowledge that I'll be forced to abandon said games for long periods if I fail to complete them quickly (but they're no fun if I rush through them). He just clicks the "Smelt" button a thousand times and is content.

Re: The OP:

One big problem with skills improving as you train them is grinding. It's interesting that you bring up The Elder Scrolls; I've played Morrowind so I'll pull an example from there. I've got some memories of casting the "Buoyancy" spell repeatedly to boost my Alteration skill, or leaping off the Foreign Quarter of Vivec just so I could jump back up to raise my Acrobatics skill. Obviously, that's not much fun, so I only did it when I needed to get a few more points to advance in one of the organizations, but the problem remains. The system of diminishing returns was a nice discourager (once it started taking too long to advance Alteration, for instance, I decided to quit pandering to the Mage's Guild and just be happy as Master Thief and Grandmaster of House Hlaalu--I should probably start looking into this "Nerevarine" thing now...), but there's still a risk.

Granted, I'm not saying that your PCs will spend all their time repeatedly jumping up and down to raise their "Acrobatics" or stabbing each other to raise their "Short Blade"--that would detract fun from the whole table. However, they could easily say "With my cut of the treasure from the dragon's horde, I take a month off from adventuring to live in luxury. During this time, I spend at least an hour every night (sparring with my buddies / messing around with expensive locks / healing the sick / crafting toys / jumping up and down repeatedly)." What can you do then? Saying that they don't gain any skills off-screen wrecks the verisimilitude you've spent all this work creating: Why is it that picking a DC 30 lock in the Lich's Tower provides experience, but not picking that same lock in your own home? Decrying them for metagaming won't work either: There actions are perfectly realistic, after all. Claiming that skills only rise appreciably "under pressure" (ie When you can't take 10) cuts out a lot of skills, such as most lockpicking, most disguises, and most night watches. The only acceptable compromise I can see is stating that they only gain experience from using a skill if there's a negative consequence for failure.

Well, either that or putting a hard cap on the skills, but everyone prefers to feel like they're growing stronger.

[Jayabalard]

Second, the way one gets better at a skill in real life is by long, arduous training. Pretty much the opposite of "exciting fun." So if someone did create a game system that handled skill improvement realistically, no one would play it.

You'd be surprised at the level of simulation that some people like.

Okay, I'm curious if you could name a recently released class-based system that is not a D&D spinoff?

Palladium is still publishing, though they've had some setbacks from that embezzlement issue.

I believe that they've reacquired the robotech license and they should have a new robotech RPG book out "soon"; the goal was "by Christmas" but I haven't seen a press release since that one.

[raygungothic]

I tend to think of levels as being useful and entertaining tools that have nothing to do with realism.

In GURPS, if I remember correctly, you can gain a point in a skill through hundreds of hours of dedicated study or thousands of hours of just working using it. I have been in a campaign where this was the ONLY advancement allowed. Realistic, perhaps (sort of - I think I learn faster than that in real life!) but not very much fun.

D&D is based on the common fantasy trope that characters develop fast while Living an Adventuring Life, and I tend to be pretty happy with this - providing I am careful to make sure everyone's character gets a spot written just for their role, and give out XP for a pretty broad range of adventuring experiences not just slaughtering things. That goes quite a long way towards reducing some of the sillier effects of the XP system.