Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 26, 2021, 11:49:49 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2021, 03:14:54 PM
Zero to Hero is an Archetypal Story.  You dont just get rid of Archetypes by saying you dont like them.

There's zero to hero, and then there's infinite power leveling.

I get the whole psychology situation about a dopamine hit on level up, but that doesn't mean a game convention lends itself well beyond that context.

You don't see infinite power leveling in the myths and stories that originally inspired D&D. Hercules doesn't become more powerful with every labor he fulfills. Odin doesn't keep accumulating more and more power after his first stint impaling himself on the world tree. Conan doesn't become more and more powerful with every threat he faces off. Captain America doesn't keep getting stronger and stronger with every villain he defeats. Sherlock Holmes doesn't become more powerful with every mystery he solves. Luigi and Mario don't get increasingly powerful with every victory over Bowser. These stories aren't worse off for lacking infinite power leveling, and I'd argue they're better off without it.

Look at Iron Man, he is always leveling up with every movie until at the end of his arc he has infinite power.  How is that not zero to hero?

Quote from: TJS on February 26, 2021, 01:30:40 AM

Quote from: Opaopajr on February 26, 2021, 12:10:25 AM
Nah, I don't use CR. Just word problem math with very poor fun returns. Faster to use Hit Dice or XP Tiers to eyeball something to slot into the Encounter Table. For Set Piece Battles, such as an Adventure's typical hingepoint, I liked those being more according to the XP Tier and Setting Fiction's Context.

No need to complicate the job of a GM to scare away future GMs. We are not there to ensure safety and success, as if we are designing bowling lanes with guard bumpers to prevent gutterballs. The players get to pick their challenges (even in most published Adventures to some extent), so let players enjoy the fun of figuring out how. GMing should be a fun hosting experience, not like CPA forensic accounting. 

Yes.  It really should have been discarded as a relic of 3rd edition and it's over-systemetization of everything.

Posts like these are a strong argument for why forums should have a "like" button...

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 26, 2021, 11:49:49 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2021, 03:14:54 PM
Zero to Hero is an Archetypal Story.  You dont just get rid of Archetypes by saying you dont like them.

There's zero to hero, and then there's infinite power leveling.

I get the whole psychology situation about a dopamine hit on level up, but that doesn't mean a game convention lends itself well beyond that context.

You don't see infinite power leveling in the myths and stories that originally inspired D&D. Hercules doesn't become more powerful with every labor he fulfills. Odin doesn't keep accumulating more and more power after his first stint impaling himself on the world tree. Conan doesn't become more and more powerful with every threat he faces off. Captain America doesn't keep getting stronger and stronger with every villain he defeats. Sherlock Holmes doesn't become more powerful with every mystery he solves. Luigi and Mario don't get increasingly powerful with every victory over Bowser. These stories aren't worse off for lacking infinite power leveling, and I'd argue they're better off without it.

The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

You know that of course, but I feel compelled to mention it because it always amazes me how often white room theorizing seems to forget that. We simply can't emulate the myths, legends, and stories in the RPG. Or if we could, it would suck, because different media have different demands, and many things that work in a story won't work in a game, and vice versa. We can be inspired by other media, and evoke some of the elements we like, but it will never be particularly close. Look at how much comics or books have to change to make good movies, and then multiply it because RPGs are an interactive, collaborative, and primarily oral medium, which much further away from narratively plotted pre-packaged stories, than expressions of those stories in different media are from each other.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 02:24:48 AM
The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

Thank you for summing up in one sentence the problem I always seemed to have, but could never entirely put my finger on, with Box's ideas about gaming.

He wants it all to be a story. Stories don't typically categorize undead into dozens of different types with different names... so Box wants every undead smashed into one critter with a single name (ex. wights in GoT) because that is how it would work in a story. Stories also often feature unique monsters; there's one Minotaur, one Medusa, etc.

Meanwhile, my gamer brain takes one look at those ideas and says "why would you want to add confusion and/or extra work for the GM by lumping a bunch of monsters under the same name and possibly just having a single stat block the GM has to adjust to match the level of the PCs."

Stories also rarely make distinctions between more than a couple types of magic, so Box sees no point in having distinctions between a druid, cleric of a nature god and warlock with a nature patron.

Meanwhile I see all the ways the different classes could appeal to different play styles and allow different experiences in different campaigns.

Stories tend to have relatively flat skill growth (maybe a magic protagonist gets a better handle on their abilities in an origin story or learns a specific spell to deal with an episodic McGuffin) so Box doesn't feel PCs need as much growth as a typical RPG presents.

I do somewhat agree in the sense that infinite vertical progression can lead to needless number inflation that slows things down (quick, what's 6 + 7 + 38... that's what a basic attack in 4E at high levels could look like), but that doesn't mean PCs should remain static. My own sentiment is to cap vertical progression at some point before the numbers get too large, but then allow infinite lateral progression after that

Box seems mostly interested in RPGs as a system to create stories rather than as a system to create a good time among friends. My feeling on CR systems is that a good one can make it easier to get those good times by allowing the GM to easily judge the degree of difficulty they're setting up (and old school HD with *s where each denoted abilities that made a monster tougher than HD alone indicated worked VERY well as a CR system). A bad CR system though can make it harder to get a handle on what will make a good encounter and so the system would be improved with no CR system at all.

Or the short version... good CR system > no CR system > bad CR system.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 02:24:48 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 26, 2021, 11:49:49 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2021, 03:14:54 PM
Zero to Hero is an Archetypal Story.  You dont just get rid of Archetypes by saying you dont like them.

There's zero to hero, and then there's infinite power leveling.

I get the whole psychology situation about a dopamine hit on level up, but that doesn't mean a game convention lends itself well beyond that context.

You don't see infinite power leveling in the myths and stories that originally inspired D&D. Hercules doesn't become more powerful with every labor he fulfills. Odin doesn't keep accumulating more and more power after his first stint impaling himself on the world tree. Conan doesn't become more and more powerful with every threat he faces off. Captain America doesn't keep getting stronger and stronger with every villain he defeats. Sherlock Holmes doesn't become more powerful with every mystery he solves. Luigi and Mario don't get increasingly powerful with every victory over Bowser. These stories aren't worse off for lacking infinite power leveling, and I'd argue they're better off without it.

The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

You know that of course, but I feel compelled to mention it because it always amazes me how often white room theorizing seems to forget that. We simply can't emulate the myths, legends, and stories in the RPG. Or if we could, it would suck, because different media have different demands, and many things that work in a story won't work in a game, and vice versa. We can be inspired by other media, and evoke some of the elements we like, but it will never be particularly close. Look at how much comics or books have to change to make good movies, and then multiply it because RPGs are an interactive, collaborative, and primarily oral medium, which much further away from narratively plotted pre-packaged stories, than expressions of those stories in different media are from each other.

I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes. There is a clear difference between the two, as you say. You're exactly right. What works for a story doesn't work for a game, and vice versa. That's why I'm annoyed by seeing so many writers using some variation of leveling as a crutch rather than writing good stories. Leveling wasn't created to help build stories, it was created to give players a feeling of accomplishment. The same designers who designed leveling also played games where it was normal for PCs to constantly die and be replaced. That isn't remotely conducive to telling a coherent story. Games are not stories, and vice versa. That's why D&D fiction doesn't resemble gameplay at all.

Actually, I think there are pretty solid 'Zero to Hero' stories in well....adventure stories.

Those often have a prolonged story with lots of twists and turns and points where the characters get stronger or develop new skills to take on stronger foes.

The hero's journey is like one of the key stories ever, and it involves character skill growth.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 02:24:48 AM

The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

Yep. D&D was never a scholarly tome attempting to accuratley represnt the myths of the world. It's a game inspired by old myths and current interpretations of them. IE "Tolkenized fantasy".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes.

What I actually said was:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2021, 03:14:54 PM
Zero to Hero is an Archetypal Story.  You dont just get rid of Archetypes by saying you dont like them.

Which says nothing at all about the buddy adventure of Sherlock Holmes and Heracles.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2021, 02:33:45 PM
Actually, I think there are pretty solid 'Zero to Hero' stories in well....adventure stories.

Those often have a prolonged story with lots of twists and turns and points where the characters get stronger or develop new skills to take on stronger foes.

The hero's journey is like one of the key stories ever, and it involves character skill growth.

Not exactly ever. The hero's journey was more or less invented by Campbell by stitching together various bits and pieces of folklore. Very few stories written pre-Campbell use more than two or three of the stages. Post-Campbell, it is common to see stories using most or all 17 stages because those stories were directly influenced by him. It's a pretty common critique of his analysis.

Also, Campbell's monomyth doesn't describe D&D-style leveling anyway. It was used to describe storytelling patterns, not level-based gameplay. Invoking Campbell's monomyth is irrelevant to criticisms of leveling.

I don't have any problem with skill growth (which isn't to say skill-based systems are perfect, they have their own problems). It's leveling that I'm criticizing, and more specifically how it impacts monster design.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 27, 2021, 03:32:56 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 02:24:48 AM

The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

Yep. D&D was never a scholarly tome attempting to accuratley represnt the myths of the world. It's a game inspired by old myths and current interpretations of them. IE "Tolkenized fantasy".

Yep. To add: It was an outgrowth of wargames that took inspiration from a variety of sources beyond Tolkien, such as pulp fiction and Stormbringer. Besides some surface-level imitation, D&D actually has very little in common with Tolkien's actual themes and approach to world building.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 05:07:14 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes.

What I actually said was:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2021, 03:14:54 PM
Zero to Hero is an Archetypal Story.  You dont just get rid of Archetypes by saying you dont like them.

Which says nothing at all about the buddy adventure of Sherlock Holmes and Heracles.

I never said I disliked the "zero to hero" trope. I'm criticizing the additional scaling you see in level-based game design, where it's zero to level 1, level 2, level 10, ad infinitum. And more specifically relevant to this thread, how it impacts monster design by mandating that designers keep inventing (often redundant) monsters to fill the various level brackets.

Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

D&D's scaling doesn't really work very well in terms of stories.

There are story of ordinary people and their foibles such as in ancient comedies and there are highly mythic tales of larger then heroes, written in a heightened tone, that do battle with gods and demons, but the former don't usually turn into the latter after a period of time - in fact they belong to completely different genres (in the classical sense).

Is it a problem?  Depends what D&D you are playing - one of the 3rd level characters in the B/X game I'm playing in right now has 4 hps. 

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 05:51:51 PM
Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

Going from a 1st level nobody to a 20th level Hero is irrelevant to the Architypal Zero to Hero story?

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 06:37:32 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 05:51:51 PM
Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

Going from a 1st level nobody to a 20th level Hero is irrelevant to the Architypal Zero to Hero story?

Gandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 07:01:42 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 06:37:32 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 05:51:51 PM
Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

Going from a 1st level nobody to a 20th level Hero is irrelevant to the Architypal Zero to Hero story?

Gandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.

Excuse me, 5th level Druid.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 07:23:01 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 07:01:42 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 06:37:32 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 05:51:51 PM
Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

Going from a 1st level nobody to a 20th level Hero is irrelevant to the Architypal Zero to Hero story?

Gandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.

Excuse me, 5th level Druid.

And a god. Or angel, at least. Does that mean Gandalf is a divine caster who grants himself spells?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes. There is a clear difference between the two, as you say. You're exactly right. What works for a story doesn't work for a game, and vice versa. That's why I'm annoyed by seeing so many writers using some variation of leveling as a crutch rather than writing good stories. Leveling wasn't created to help build stories, it was created to give players a feeling of accomplishment. The same designers who designed leveling also played games where it was normal for PCs to constantly die and be replaced. That isn't remotely conducive to telling a coherent story. Games are not stories, and vice versa. That's why D&D fiction doesn't resemble gameplay at all.

There's a subgenre of Shonen anime that's built around the concept of continually leveling up. Dragonball Z is a classic example (my power level is over 9000!), Demon Slayer is a modern one, and One Punch Man parodies it. It's fascinating, because it's a storytelling structure that was clearly borrowed from tabletop RPGs, although second-hand via video games instead of being directly inspired. And it works quite well, at least for the audience (teenage boys looking for macho power fantasies). But even a clearly derived element like this is highly modified from its origins. For instance, the leveling up on those stories follows predictable dramatic beats, instead of being something that's earned and accounted for by players. It's very different both in implementation and purpose.