Quote from: David Johansen;643160Chivalry and Sorcery Third Edition had an interesting approach to levels in that you bought skills with experience points and then leveled up when you had spent enough experience to do so.  The experience level provided a brake on over development of a single skill.

Dark Heresy and the other books in the line do this as well, with each Rank opening up new skills and abilities to buy.

I don't mind the concept, but it was a pain to create a high level character from the ground up.

Quote from: The Traveller;643153You're saying here essentially that mechanics have no effect on how people game. I'd strongly disagree with that, people behave differently in lethal game systems than in comfortable systems, they tend to pursue things that will give them an advantage (like levels) - I mean what are dungeons but great big XP generators, why would any player choose to go into them if it wasn't for the rewards.

You're basically saying human nature doesn't exist here, so eh yeah.

I'm not being anywhere near that extreme.

My extensive experience with both games is that Toon plays differently from the Morrow Project.

But when you tell me that people will level up to fight an Ogre they can't beat in a straight-up fight -- the part of my post you didn't respond to, I tell you that's not my experience.

Extreme mechanics (Morrow Project's bleeding an insta-death rules, or Toon's you-can't-die rules) will surely affect game play. No doubt. But when it comes to the "what to do about the Ogre problem" -- your scenario -- I don't see it making a difference.

Let me ask you something: you proposed a scenario where you thought leveling mechanics would drive player behavior. I gave you a bunch of options that said no. You ignored all of that.

Why? Doesn't it, at least, demonstrate that in my experience leveling mechanics wouldn't drive behavior?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643168Let me ask you something: you proposed a scenario where you thought leveling mechanics would drive player behavior. I gave you a bunch of options that said no. You ignored all of that.

Why? Doesn't it, at least, demonstrate that in my experience leveling mechanics wouldn't drive behavior?

I ignored that because we could play whatabout games all day and it would serve no purpose. I propose a scenario, you come up with non-level-requiring solutions, but all that means is you're playing devil's advocate. It's not scoring points, it's missing the point.

Quote from: -E.;643168Extreme mechanics (Morrow Project's bleeding an insta-death rules, or Toon's you-can't-die rules) will surely affect game play. No doubt.

Levels are a central feature of D&D. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that the rest of the game revolves around them, to an extent. So you've no problem with "extreme" rules modifying player behaviour, but a central pillar of a game system won't?

Methinks you aren't being entirely genuine in your argument.

Quote from: The Traveller;643153So it's a preference issue to find the idea of 'PCs running around after piles of gold in order to be able to fall farther without dying' a bit odd?

Nice, however you know perfectly well that not the point of the game. You gain experience from successfully adventuring represented by monsters slain, and treasure acquired.

Quote from: The Traveller;643153Arbitrary design in that it wasn't designed top down but rather as a collection of patches and kludges, as per the Ironclad example, whatever was handy was shoehorned in.

I find in general that RPGs that were designed from actual play (OD&D, Runequest, etc) rather than top down to be far more usable.

Quote from: The Traveller;643153I'm starting to suspect this is more of an emotional issue for you than one which can be viewed objectively. You don't need my permission to enjoy D&D, no need to feel guilty about using levels because some randomer on the internet showed they were a kludge at best. I've already said that if people enjoy using levels, more power to them.

You should take your own advice about viewing skill advancement objectively more intuitive than level advancement.

Quote from: The Traveller;643153Ah here it is. The elaborate essay justification. And completely ignoring the point made many times already that classes are distinct from levels. You can have classes without ever using levels. I suppose you can have levels without classes but it doesn't make much sense.

Again the point was not that skill based RPG have packages but they have follow-on package that in effect levels. For example you apply a apprentice blacksmith package to a character then a journeyman package to make a slightly more experienced Blacksmith, finally a master package to represent the best blacksmiths.

Quote from: The Traveller;643153And the final touch. Microsoft windows has dominated the PC OS marketplace for decades, is it the best OS? Or could there be other reasons for its dominance?

There are multitude of reasons. Windows 1.X and 2.x were shit GUI OSes, Windows 3.X was likewise inferior to competing Macs however it gained just enough improvements that allowed its other advantages to come into play and win the day for Microsoft.  Namely Microsoft's programming support, and its ability to work with nearly every piece of hardware for the PC under the sun. The dominance of Microsoft came into full flower with Windows 95 and 98


The same with D&D, if it was left at OD&D it's first mover advantage would have dissipated by 1980. But Greyhawk added the elements to make it the classic D&D most people learned, Holmes cleaned up the presentation followed by Moldavy and Mentzer Red Box sets. And AD&D was a unique creative work without rival when it was first released.

Quote from: The Traveller;643153You're saying here essentially that mechanics have no effect on how people game.

I will add my opinion is that mechanics have an effect on tactics, while the referee campaign style impact strategy. What you are talking about is strategy not tactics. I.e. the goals the players strive for their characters.

My opinion is the result of having run the same fantasy setting for a variety of players using a half-dozen rule systems for 30 years. In all of my campaigns the players wind up pursuing their own goals that are independent of the system I use. However the means of gaining the goals is highly dependent on the rule system.

The main reason I got rid of gold for xp is not because of any realism issue but rather it interfered with the player trying to attain their goals in-game which has always been the main point of my campaigns. In short I rather they spent the gold on building castles than character advancement.

Quote from: The Traveller;643169I ignored that because we could play whatabout games all day and it would serve no purpose. I propose a scenario, you come up with non-level-requiring solutions, but all that means is you're playing devil's advocate. It's not scoring points, it's missing the point.


Levels are a central feature of D&D. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that the rest of the game revolves around them, to an extent. So you've no problem with "extreme" rules modifying player behaviour, but a central pillar of a game system won't?

Methinks you aren't being entirely genuine in your argument.

... so when you described a scenario you believed illustrated your point, I wasn't supposed to respond to it, because nothing I could say could convince you that it's possible to respond to a threat in a game with levels without invoking the level mechanic?

And you don't think I'm being genuine?

I think you didn't respond because you lack the courage of your convictions.

The truth is that people play Role Playing Games for a lot of different reasons, but the one thing that makes them RPG's is that you play a role. That's the common denominator.

Level mechanics can be influential but they don't have to be -- not for all players and certainly not in all situations.

If you look at what you've written -- your example, in your very own post, in your very on words, and use a little imagination, you'll see that's the case.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643178.Level mechanics can be influential but they don't have to be -- not for all players and certainly not in all situations.

I agree and in my campaigns the levels are treated as a shorthand for a character with a certain amount of skill.

And my way is not any better or worse than those D&D campaigns that treat any leveled character as a hero type.*

*One of the age old debates in among D&D referee whether higher than 1st level character are special heroes, or just experienced individuals where settlements have a lot of leveled individuals.

Quote from: estar;643176Nice, however you know perfectly well that not the point of the game. You gain experience from successfully adventuring represented by monsters slain, and treasure acquired.

What if players don't want to kill and loot? What if they want to find a diplomatic way around problems? They'd be permanently stuck on level 1. Metagaming directing player character actions.

Quote from: estar;643176I find in general that RPGs that were designed from actual play (OD&D, Runequest, etc) rather than top down to be far more usable.

Organic growth, playtesting, and top down design are all different things.

Quote from: estar;643176You should take your own advice about viewing skill advancement objectively more intuitive than level advancement.

Okay, intuitively I walk up to you in the street and say, "I'll give you five thousand dollars and you will then go up a level in map making", how would that strike you?

Quote from: estar;643176Again the point was not that skill based RPG have packages but they have follow-on package that in effect levels. For example you apply a apprentice blacksmith package to a character then a journeyman package to make a slightly more experienced Blacksmith, finally a master package to represent the best blacksmiths.

You're making a couple of assertion here which aren't true (all skill based systems use follow on packages, or even packages) and secondly that levels have intrinsically anything to do with classes. You can have classes containing skill sets without levels, I do it myself, without follow on packages. If they were intrinsically connected, you couldn't.

You certainly can write lengthy apologia in elaborate essays but it won't bend reality any further to match your very much invested opinion.

Quote from: estar;643176There are multitude of reasons. Windows 1.X and 2.x were shit GUI OSes, Windows 3.X was likewise inferior to competing Macs however it gained just enough improvements that allowed its other advantages to come into play and win the day for Microsoft.  Namely Microsoft's programming support, and its ability to work with nearly every piece of hardware for the PC under the sun. The dominance of Microsoft came into full flower with Windows 95 and 98

The same with D&D, if it was left at OD&D it's first mover advantage would have dissipated by 1980. But Greyhawk added the elements to make it the classic D&D most people learned, Holmes cleaned up the presentation followed by Moldavy and Mentzer Red Box sets. And AD&D was a unique creative work without rival when it was first released.

All of this reinforces my point.

Quote from: estar;643176The main reason I got rid of gold for xp is not because of any realism issue but rather it interfered with the player trying to attain their goals in-game

Yes, the metagaming interfered with the roleplaying. Seeing my point yet?

Quote from: -E.;643178I think you didn't respond because you lack the courage of your convictions.

If you say so. Playing devil's advocate is very easy, as is being contrarian, particularly when it suits your invested opinion. Not so easy actually dealing with the points raised. You say level mechanics don't influence player actions in a meta fashion, while accepting that fringe mechanics do. Patently a double standard of taking what you want and ignoring the rest.

Quote from: The Traveller;643184If you say so. Playing devil's advocate is very easy, as is being contrarian, particularly when it suits your invested opinion. Not so easy actually dealing with the points raised. You say level mechanics don't influence player actions in a meta fashion, while accepting that fringe mechanics do. Patently a double standard of taking what you want and ignoring the rest.

I'm dealing with the points raised.

You raised a point, I responded to it. You dropped it and instead of dealing with my response, you've gone to ad hominem attacks and youtube videos.

I'm still here, and still dealing with your points, and still waiting for you to come back to the -- very insightful, in my opinion -- example you raised.

Let's take my double-standard, for example: I think that games like Toon or Morrow Project do change the way people play. I'm not taking an extreme position that precludes that. But I don't think level mechanics fall into that category because of my direct experience with them.

Your example -- your prisoner princess -- is a great example of why this is the case: there are a whole variety of (superior) ways to address that situation that have nothing to do with going up a level.

So it's not a double standard -- I'm just declining to be an extremist.

I'll ask again: if your example actually illustrates how level-based mechanics might fail to influence player behavior, isn't it true that levels aren't all that impactful?

Or maybe you'd like to explorer the issue with a different scenario?

I'm game.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: The Traveller;643184Okay, intuitively I walk up to you in the street and say, "I'll give you five thousand dollars and you will then go up a level in map making", how would that strike you?

I will answer your other replies in another post for this one I will let Gygax answer for himself

From Page 84 of the AD&D Dungeon Master Guide

Note: Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience); magic-users should be deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically, and so forth; while thieves should spend their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims, and carefully planning their next "job". All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!

Quote from: The Traveller;643184Yes, the metagaming interfered with the roleplaying. Seeing my point yet?

It had nothing to do with metagaming. It had to do with they had a finite amount of gold and what they were spending it on. Before and after players were doing the same things as they always did.

Quote from: -E.;643196I'm dealing with the points raised.

No, you aren't, you're trying to avoid them by playing devil's advocate. I mean I don't know who you think you're fooling here, people are able to read. Bit rich accusing me of ad hominens after your "courage of your convictions" crack incidentally, sounds a bit like that other poster who keeps battering on about courage vis a vis roleplaying game rules...

Quote from: -E.;643196Or maybe you'd like to explorer the issue with a different scenario?

I'm game.

I know you are, because you think it lets you sidestep the substantive issue, which you have still refused to deal with. You've already admitted players metagame according to fringe rules, and now you're saying they won't metagame according to central game pillars.

Why is that?

This thread feels like 1985 again.

Quote from: estar;643197Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along.

Cheers Gary, but my no-accounting skill advancement system among others incur considerably less overhead and suspension of disbelief than experience points gleaned from gold. As I said, the state of the art has moved on. If it was 1982 I'd probably be agreeing with you but things have developed a bit since.

Quote from: estar;643199 It had nothing to do with metagaming. It had to do with they had a finite amount of gold and what they were spending it on. Before and after players were doing the same things as they always did.

And another rules don't affect player actions statement. I'll quote another frequent poster around these parts, LordVreeg:
"Vreeg's First Law of setting design..." Be very careful deciding what system to use in your setting, making sure that the system matches the game and setting you are trying to create. Because eventually, the setting and the game WILL reflect the system.""

Quote from: KenHR;643201This thread feels like 1985 again.

Some things never change, some people never learn.

Quote from: The Traveller;643200No, you aren't, you're trying to avoid them by playing devil's advocate. I mean I don't know who you think you're fooling here, people are able to read. Bit rich accusing me of ad hominens after your "courage of your convictions" crack incidentally, sounds a bit like that other poster who keeps battering on about courage vis a vis roleplaying game rules...


I know you are, because you think it lets you sidestep the substantive issue, which you have still refused to deal with. You've already admitted players metagame according to fringe rules, and now you're saying they won't metagame according to central game pillars.

Why is that?

Now that's interesting.

You questioned my genuinity in post 93 -- my suspicions about your courage came in 95 as a direct response to that.

That's a funny thing to get wrong, don't you think? The bit where you forget you started adding up the homonyms?

Curious, huh?

The reason I want to look a clear examples framed in terms of, you know, roleplaying game scenarios, is that I'm afraid that if you go making up terms like "central game pillars" and "fringe rules" we're going to be hopelessly lost.

I honestly am not sure what I admitted here -- I said that in my experience, whether a game has levels or not doesn't make a huge difference, but that games where combat is either lethal and crippling (Morrow Project) or completely non-lethal (Toon) play is definitely modified.

I can give concrete examples of all of this, which leads to clarity in the conversation as well as clarity in thought -- and I know you agree because before we started this descent into invented jargon (central game pillars? fringe rules? Really? I don't see those in either the Table of Contents or the Index of the games I play) you started with an example.

A good one.

You've been running at full speed away from it ever since. But if you think I'm ducking your points, can you re-state them without inventing any words?

I'm game for that, too.

Here to serve,
-E.