This is why I tend to prefer bell curve systems (where there's enough of a chance of failure at your core competency to keep things lively), or degrees of success/failure (requires a bit of GM fiat, unless the game has such a great crit/fumble table that narration is completely moot).

Quote from: Phillip;691402You may be working on the same assumption as the OP. I'd say it depends on circumstances. Does the whole less elite world simply vanish just because one character has attained some degree of experience? That would not work at all in early RPGs (in which PCs might be of widely different experience levels), nor will it satisfy those who demand some verisimilitude.

Moreover, it won't satisfy those who want advancement to show a real effect -- being able to do things easily that once were hard -- instead of just inflating numbers.

I clearly fucked up in my phrasing because everyone seems to think I was saying something that I wasn't. A 10 foot cliff doesn't get any harder to climb, and a goblin doesn't get any bulkier if you level up, but it is normally the case (I would argue with good reason) that the major quests of players tend to steer them towards challenges that are appropriate for their level. They want to beat up a goblin? Sure. That is easy. But if they want to make progress on their quest, it should probably involve beating up something harder.

I'm not saying everything in the world should scale. That is stupid. I'm saying that players should be asked by the game to take on greater and greater challenges as they level up. Numerically AND thematically.

Quote from: Doccit;692740I'm not saying everything in the world should scale. That is stupid. I'm saying that players should be asked by the game to take on greater and greater challenges as they level up. Numerically AND thematically.

This is one area where the old treasure as the primary source of XP really did its job well.

You could keep going after lower level dungeons and win the treasures fairly easy. The XP you got for that kept decreasing to the point where sooner or later you had to tackle bigger game if you wanted a measurable increase in wealth and power.

Greed caused us to take such foolish risks but those risks provided so much fun. It is so much easier to laugh off the death of a beloved character when he died due to your questionable choices and greed than being forced to jump through the hoop of predefined challenge difficulties.

Quote from: Doccit;688177But how are they supposed to know what is risky without testing themselves?

How do we do it in real life?

One idea that came to my mind the other day was immediately suggested by recollection of a Dr Who rules set (Time Lord?), but I think is also similar to BTRC's Corps system.

Anyhow, it's that skills are rated qualitatively in terms of what kinds of things can be done with usual near certainty of success given a certain skill level. Significant risk of failure comes in when attempting things beyond that.

First rough go: For things above level, roll d6-d6 (higher minus lower), trying to get at least the difference. Anything 6 or more levels higher is definitely beyond your expertise. For things at level or less, a bit of uncertainty can be introduced (when it seems appropriate) by having "snake eyes" (1 in 36) indicate a worse than expected result; otherwise, those can simply be assumed to get done without a roll.

Quote from: Phillip;693013How do we do it in real life?

Intuition based in experience. Which is why people with less experience misjudge their abilities.