TheRPGSite

The great thing about them is that you can choose where along the level chain you want to begin, where you want to spend most of your time and when you want to end.

I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.

What I like about non level based systems is you can begin anywhere and end when you like. Threats and rewards aren't based on metagaming, they're based on the fact that a four ton fire breathing lizard probably isn't something you want to boogey with unless you've got a deck of aces up a fairly voluminous sleeve.

What do levels even mean, the whole concept is an immersion breaker. Individual skills now, that makes sense.

Quote from: The Traveller;642721What I like about non level based systems is you can begin anywhere and end when you like.

Indeed. You can generally choose where you want to start, spend your time, and finish.

QuoteWhat do levels even mean, the whole concept is an immersion breaker. Individual skills now, that makes sense.

Yeah, thanks for that.

Quote from: One Horse Town;642719The great thing about them is that you can choose where along the level chain you want to begin, where you want to spend most of your time and when you want to end.

I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.

I like chocolate...

Quote from: The Traveller;642721What I like about non level based systems is you can begin anywhere and end when you like. Threats and rewards aren't based on metagaming, they're based on the fact that a four ton fire breathing lizard probably isn't something you want to boogey with unless you've got a deck of aces up a fairly voluminous sleeve.

What do levels even mean, the whole concept is an immersion breaker. Individual skills now, that makes sense.

I like peanut butter...

I like chocolate and peanut butter together.

That being said, OHT is absolutely correct:  level-based systems very useful in assessing relative power levels for both PC/NPCs and monsters (hit dice being a fair and rough equivalency to PC/NPC level).

I think OHT is correct: Class/Levels offer some very real benefits, especially to novice players and DM's.

• Clear goals and rewards for play.
• Easy to judge relative power of PC's and monsters.
• Reducing cognitive load (i.e. fewer choices) — you get what the class offers at that level. (Research (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-tech-support/201011/the-burden-choice) on why this is valuable.)
• Easier to balance than skill systems.
• (wrt OSR products) Known and tested starting point makes development simpler (as a lot of decisions have already been made).
• Campaign color is easily implemented with classes. (See Arcana Evolved.)

That said, I find class-level systems incredibly stultifying. Seriously, they cause mental cramps each time I see people worrying about how to represent their exact character within the confines of a rigid system:

"I want a wizard with armor and a sword, like Gandalf." "I want a fighter who can sneak." "I want a trap-finding character who is aces at combat."

Backgrounds, themes, all that — they're attempts to evade restrictions that are fundamental to the mechanics. Nice, within their scope, but evidence that the mechanics are constrained — by deliberate design.

In other words, what makes them great for novices, is what makes them bad for me.

YMMV. IME. (PDBM.)

Level-based systems are nice for a game with a broad scale (from novice to demigod or what have you) and you want it all in one campaign. But if you build a level-based game, there may be unrelated decisions and compromises you'll have to make down the road. And if you don't want that degree of progression or breadth of scale it may be a poor trade-off. I wouldn't want a level-based Unknown Armies for example.

In a larger sense, one of the biggest problems among RPG fandom (and, it must be said, all fandoms) is the prevalence of One True Wayism: "My preferences are objectively the best for everyone."

Well, hooey! Simply, provably untrue. (Unless I'm saying it. Because, you know, I'm awesome.)

In my experience, any game designer (or any designer, engineer, or artist, period) who can't explain the drawbacks of his own choices, and the benefits other choices might offer, doesn't understand his own work well enough to produce something great. (Unless it's wholly by accident, like Kevin Siembieda or George Lucas.)

That goes for classes/levels, as well. If you can't articulate or don't know the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, your body of knowledge is lacking. (One of the reasons Bloody Stupid Johnson's thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21479) is so valuable, IMHO.)

Just to muddy the waters some more there are also hybrid approaches which use both level and skills. Bushido is an example of that (it's the first one that comes to mind because I just finished running a long campaign of it).

Players pick a class (Magician, thief, warrior, martial artists, etc.) which gives them broad capabilities within the setting. Magicians get the 'basic knowledge spells,' Warriors get a boost to skills like horsemanship and brawling as well as greater access to weapon skills. The player then personalizes the character by developing skills which interest it. A magician may choose to study water and fire magic but might also choose to learn how to handle a bo staff or even a sword. The warrior decides he wants to learn archery and spears, but makes time to also study Chinese Classics so he can be eloquent at court.

When the character levels up he gets an automatic boost to the skills which are favored by his class. Mages automatically get a little better at magic, warriors get a little better at fighting. However the characters can still pursue the skills which don't neatly fit into their class they just don't increase as quickly.

Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;642767Just to muddy the waters some more there are also hybrid approaches which use both level and skills.

It's sadly typical that everyone reacts to levels as if the person is only speaking about D&D levels. There are other approaches that carry little of the baggage that D&D does.

Quote from: gleichman;642777It's sadly typical that everyone reacts to levels as if the person is only speaking about D&D levels. There are other approaches that carry little of the baggage that D&D does.

Not sure if what I said was sadly typical. Just pointing out there is a middle ground between the levels and skill-based systems. I've played and run a lot of different systems as a gamer and I think it mostly comes down to 'select the one that will work the best in this instance.'

Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;642784Not sure if what I said was sadly typical.

No, not yours. You did very well.

It's the posts before you that seem to think D&D is the only game out there with Levels (or that any game with Levels must have the problems D&D has).

Quote from: One Horse Town;642719The great thing about them is that you can choose where along the level chain you want to begin, where you want to spend most of your time and when you want to end.

I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.

In my experience, level-based systems (following D&D) tend to center character creation only on making 1st level characters.  Making higher level characters is often unsupported or very cumbersome to support - i.e. you have to create a 1st level character and then go through the process of leveling them up one level at a time, which makes the creation process long and cumbersome.  

Point-bought skill-based systems tend to be much easier to make more powerful starting characters, although not always.  You just give the players more points.  It still takes a little longer, but often not much.  

There are things to like about level-based system, but "choose where you start" isn't an advantage over the common alternative.

Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;642767Just to muddy the waters some more there are also hybrid approaches which use both level and skills. Bushido is an example of that (it's the first one that comes to mind because I just finished running a long campaign of it).

An interesting and informative post.

It's sadly typical of internet comment sections that some posters can't contribute like you did, offering information and insight, instead of mere complaints about everyone else in the thread.

Kudos for rising above.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732I think OHT is correct: Class/Levels offer some very real benefits, especially to novice players and DM's. [...]

That said, I find class-level systems incredibly stultifying. Seriously, they cause mental cramps each time I see people worrying about how to represent their exact character within the confines of a rigid system:

"I want a wizard with armor and a sword, like Gandalf." "I want a fighter who can sneak." "I want a trap-finding character who is aces at combat."

I want a wizard who can fast-draw a revolver like Avatar the Great.

JG

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642789An interesting and informative post.

It's sadly typical of internet comment sections that some posters can't contribute like you did, offering information and insight, instead of mere complaints about everyone else in the thread.

Kudos for rising above.

Wait... didn't you just explain oh how experienced you are and that everyone who might like "level" is surely newb? Because you did.

Anyway you mix class and level. In fact, you can have classes without levels or levels without classes.

You can have levels a priori where you get advancement options when you hit a level, or levels a posteriori where you gain a level after fulfilling certain advancement options.

Quote from: 1of3;642794Wait... didn't you just explain oh how experienced you are and that everyone who might like "level" is surely newb?

?

So you think that when I say:

"Levels offer benefits, especially for novices."

I really mean:

"LOL. Ignorant newbs heart teh levels! FAIL. Plusly, I am tehz masta!"

Yeah, I'm gonna disagree with you, there. Simple grammar indicates you're mistaken.

And, not to poke the wound, but my post was correct. Levels do have benefits. (Nearly all design options do.) They also have drawbacks, some of which I elucidated.

Seriously, was my language that serpentine and opaque?

Quote from: Drohem;642731I like chocolate...

I like peanut butter...

I like chocolate and peanut butter together.

Oh sure but it wouldn't be much of a thread if we were alll singing from the same hymn sheet. The cut and thrust of vigorous debate isn't ragefighting, my friend! Usually.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732I think OHT is correct: Class/Levels offer some very real benefits, especially to novice players and DM's.

Whoa hold on there, I said nothing about classes and they are not inextricably bound to levels. Skill bundles, professions and so on can help build logical intuitive structure into games, you'd expect a policeman to have a certain set of skills, some of which are unique.

With that said arbitrary class restrictions are worse than levels, as you said yourself.
"I pick up this sword and stick someone with it"
"You can't"
"Okay how about this crossbow, look it's already drawn, all I have to do is squeeze the trigger"
"No, sorry"
"Why not?"
"It, eh, messes with your, um, magical...mojo..."
"Okay, can I throw it at wizards when they are casting spells to mess them up, or maybe hang it round my neck to ward off evil magicks?"
"..."

or

"So I'm physically able to carry three sets of chainmail without interfering with spellcasting, but I can't wear one?"

Once class mechanics make sense it can be great. WFRPG did a fine job with its career paths for example, serving also as a highly entertaining introduction to the setting.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732• Clear goals and rewards for play.

Non level based systems have that too, even clearer since you aren't trying to game for mysterious advancements, you're trying to game as the character would want to act. Levels are a big immersion buster.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732• Easy to judge relative power of PC's and monsters.

Two points here - if the system is so predictable that looking up two stats and comparing them can give you a very good idea how a combat will turn out, it seems a bit ... predictable. Secondly of course is that if a system makes it that difficult to judge relative power, it's probably too convoluted.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732• Reducing cognitive load (i.e. fewer choices) — you get what the class offers at that level. (Research (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-tech-support/201011/the-burden-choice) on why this is valuable.)

Class based skill structures offer the same advantage. Or even low quantities of skills of any sort.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732• Easier to balance than skill systems.

True but that's a designer's load to bear, by the time it hits the table the group and GM should have no idea it exists. Frontloaded and mostly invisible.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732• (wrt OSR products) Known and tested starting point makes development simpler (as a lot of decisions have already been made).

Again, meaningless at the table.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732• Campaign color is easily implemented with classes. (See Arcana Evolved.)

Again, classes are not intrinsically bound to levels, far from it.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732In other words, what makes them great for novices, is what makes them bad for me.

Skill bundled classes are even easier to understand and don't hazard immersion. The original level based D&D games weren't neccessarily designed with full knowledge of the other options, there's been a lot of development in the interim.

Quote from: jhkim;642788In my experience, level-based systems (following D&D) tend to center character creation only on making 1st level characters.  Making higher level characters is often unsupported or very cumbersome to support - i.e. you have to create a 1st level character and then go through the process of leveling them up one level at a time, which makes the creation process long and cumbersome.  

I think this is a good point. To ram the point home that you can choose anywhere along the zero to hero axis to play your game, it does need to be explicitly stated in the game, along with examples on how to do it.

Quote from: The Traveller;642816Whoa hold on there, I said nothing about

I was referencing OHT — One Horse Town, not yourself. Apologies for the confusion.

Quote from: The Traveller;642816Levels are a big immersion buster.

Levels have drawbacks, too. Which is why I don't like them. But they have strengths and drawbacks, my entire point.

Quote from: The Traveller;642816Again, classes are not intrinsically bound to levels, far from it.

I can think of some class systems without levels, but the converse is harder to come by; care to name some? I can only think of 2 of any significance, but one is sort of bad in character generation (d20 CoC), and the other is a bit of a stretch calling it level based (M&M).

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;642829I can think of some class systems without levels, but the converse is harder to come by; care to name some? I can only think of 2 of any significance, but one is sort of bad in character generation (d20 CoC), and the other is a bit of a stretch calling it level based (M&M).

Any game where creator creation using points is a level only game by another name. In HERO for example you can build a character with say 50 points. That could also be called a 50th level character.

Level is just a measurement system, any game that has one can be viewed in such terms.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642825I was referencing OHT — One Horse Town, not yourself. Apologies for the confusion.

I don't think he said anything about classes either.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642825Levels have drawbacks, too. Which is why I don't like them. But they have strengths and drawbacks, my entire point.

Yes, but as I attempted to detail above, non level based systems either have the same strengths or do it better. The only advantage from your list over skill based advancement is ease of threat assignment, and it's debatable whether or not that indicates a strength in the overall system. My take on it is 'not really'.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI can think of some class systems without levels, but the converse is harder to come by; care to name some? I can only think of 2 of any significance, but one is sort of bad in character generation (d20 CoC), and the other is a bit of a stretch calling it level based (M&M).

Cyberpunk 2020 is the definitive example, there are others. My own system doesn't use levels, except to a very slight extent in broad magical competence, which can be excused by saying well it's magic, it doesn't have to be realistic or intuitive, it's in the blood or whatever.

In real life every level based measure is in fact a measurement of skills. Belts in martial arts, the degrees of third level education, all of these indicate higher levels of skills in that profession, earned by exercising those skills. It's a lot more intuitive to track skill competence than it is to go wandering down the endless garden path of what XP should be awarded for then boosting an arbitrary collection of abilities based on actions that might never have used those abilities.

Quote from: gleichman;642831Any game where creator creation using points is a level only game by another name. In HERO for example you can build a character with say 50 points. That could also be called a 50th level character.

Level is just a measurement system, any game that has one can be viewed in such terms.

I wouldn't call that a level based system but a point based one. Hero 4e was a little level-ish in that it established limits on dice and attack modifiers. But still, character progression is blatantly not level-based.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;642836I wouldn't call that a level based system but a point based one. Hero 4e was a little level-ish in that it established limits on dice and attack modifiers. But still, character progression is blatantly not level-based.

Level is only a term that groups abilities. HERO has abilities and the point total group them.

We often as, "so what level characters for this campaign?"

And answer "75 points"

There's little magical about the term 'Level'. You're correct about common usage, but I think common usage blinds one to what it's actually doing.

ADDED: Age of Heroes has an unpublished classless Class that is basically just Level that I'm playing with for an expansion. Don't know if I will actually use it however.

Quote from: The Traveller;642834Cyberpunk 2020 is the definitive example, there are others.
In real life every level based measure is in fact a measurement of skills. Belts in

It's been a while since I played, but that doesn't match my recollection of the system. As I recall, CP 2020 had linear point based initial buy (with life path strapped on and option for rolled ability scores) and escalating cost skills during play with no underlying character level. That's not what I mean when I say level-based, and I'd wager the same is true of most forum-members.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;642843It's been a while since I played, but that doesn't match my recollection of the system. As I recall, CP 2020 had linear point based initial buy (with life path strapped on and option for rolled ability scores) and escalating cost skills during play with no underlying character level. That's not what I mean when I say level-based, and I'd wager the same is true of most forum-members.

Sorry I misread what you were saying, I thought you were asking for class systems without levels.

I'm not sure why you'd want a level system without classes?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;642829I can think of some class systems without levels, but the converse is harder to come by; care to name some?

I'm pretty sure one of the Gamma Worlds, maybe 4th?

Probably Silverlion can illuminate some more.

Quote from: The Traveller;642846Sorry I misread what you were saying, I thought you were asking for class systems without levels.

I'm not sure why you'd want a level system without classes?

Me neither, but that may be my more general taste/ bias speaking. I generally prefer some sort of class/template/"skill cluster" sort of thing whether I'm using levels or not.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642849I'm pretty sure one of the Gamma Worlds, maybe 4th?

Makes sense. The one context I don't find classes to helpful are those in which powers define the character more than skills/training.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642732I think OHT is correct: Class/Levels offer some very real benefits, especially to novice players and DM's.

Also to casual players of any level of experience. I define casual players as those who aren't interested in reading (let alone studying and mastering) a lot of rules to create a character or to play the game. Selecting (in D&D terms) either a fighter, a cleric, a mage, or a thief requires much less rules knowledge and time than creating any of those characters with a skill-based system.

Quote from: RandallS;642862Also to casual players of any level of experience. I define casual players as those who aren't interested in reading (let alone studying and mastering) a lot of rules to create a character or to play the game. Selecting (in D&D terms) either a fighter, a cleric, a mage, or a thief requires much less rules knowledge and time than creating any of those characters with a skill-based system.

Once again, skill based systems use classes too. Levels and classes are not the same thing.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;642829I can think of some class systems without levels, but the converse is harder to come by; care to name some? I can only think of 2 of any significance, but one is sort of bad in character generation (d20 CoC), and the other is a bit of a stretch calling it level based (M&M).

It's probably more common in CRPGs. Skyrim and Fallout spring to mind.

Quote from: gleichman;642831Any game where creator creation using points is a level only game by another name. In HERO for example you can build a character with say 50 points. That could also be called a 50th level character.

Level is just a measurement system, any game that has one can be viewed in such terms.

I think when most people talk about a level system, they're talking about an explicitly levelled system, which has enough mechanical distinction to merit a distinct term.

Quote from: gleichman;642840Level is only a term that groups abilities. HERO has abilities and the point total group them.

We often as, "so what level characters for this campaign?"

And answer "75 points"

There's little magical about the term 'Level'. You're correct about common usage, but I think common usage blinds one to what it's actually doing.

ADDED: Age of Heroes has an unpublished classless Class that is basically just Level that I'm playing with for an expansion. Don't know if I will actually use it however.

I think M&M is about the nearest I've seen to a properly "leveled" point buy game, in that it caps *individual* powers based on level (rather than capping total power level). I'd have to think about where the line is drawn to really articulate it, as so far it's one of those "know it when I see it" things.

Quote from: The Traveller;642721What do levels even mean, the whole concept is an immersion breaker. Individual skills now, that makes sense.

Levels are be a package of abilities that you gain periodically as opposed to a little bit a time as with systems with only skill improvement for advancement.

After the use of templates and packages in GURPS and Hero System I consider Levels versus skill based design a question of preference rather than a flaw in a game's design. Levels based advancement is straightforward and easy for a novice gamers to grasp and use. Skill based designs are very flexible but the same flexibility can impose more prep work.

Quote from: estar;642874Levels based advancement is straightforward and easy for a novice gamers to grasp and use. Skill based designs are very flexible but the same flexibility can impose more prep work.

Skills based advancement is even easier to understand since you don't need to abstract anything. The amount of prep work depends on the amount of skills in use as well, not even the amount of skills in the game. GURPs is a classic example of just too much of everything. Yes I know you can trim it down to size but still.

Levels and classes are not connected in any way, everyone please stop confusing them.

How about skills & levels?

Is there anything where skill development and level advancement are independent from each other?

Arcanum by Bard Games allowed you to spend XP to gain skills from other classes instead of advancing levels in your current class.

I've only read the rules (about two years ago) and never played using them, so I'm murky on specifics, but I remember being struck by the system as being pretty damn clever.

Quote from: beejazz;642870I think when most people talk about a level system, they're talking about an explicitly levelled system, which has enough mechanical distinction to merit a distinct term.

No doubt that's true. But I think it's a mistake.

HERO for example not only has a Point Value for it's ranges, but OCV/DCV limits, active points in a power, SPD range, etc. It's a Level system in every meaning of the word except perhaps advancement (as they don't explictly address it) but even that's easily handled by the included guidelines.

I think a more open view of things could result in some interesting outcomes. Just a bit out of the box while keeping some of the lessons of what came before.

Quote from: One Horse Town;642880Is there anything where skill development and level advancement are independent from each other?

Depends upon what you mean by independent.

Completely unrelated as in there's not even a cap? Can't think of any off hand, it could be done but I'm not sure why you'd want to.

Or Independent in the sense that within the cap skills are developed on their own? Rolemaster, Age of Heroes, etc.

I mean the mechanism by which your skills improve not being directly linked to level advancement.

For example, in Rolemaster you improve your skills by spending development points gained upon going up a level - they are directly linked.

Quote from: KenHR;642881Arcanum by Bard Games allowed you to spend XP to gain skills from other classes instead of advancing levels in your current class.

I've only read the rules (about two years ago) and never played using them, so I'm murky on specifics, but I remember being struck by the system as being pretty damn clever.

Yes, it was also the same when the Talislanta game system was level-based (1st - 3rd editions); a character could use XP purchase a new level or could spend XP to purchase new skills or improve existing skills.

Quote from: One Horse Town;642890I mean the mechanism by which your skills improve not being directly linked to level advancement.

For example, in Rolemaster you improve your skills by spending development points gained upon going up a level - they are directly linked.

That's what I was thinking you meant. In Age of Heroes you have the *option* to spend additional XP above the required to earn the level to improve skills. But it's still capped by level and likely isn't what you're looking for.

It would be easy enough to break the link, and I can even see why one would want to....

But I can't think of any system that does.

Quote from: gleichman;642886No doubt that's true. But I think it's a mistake.

HERO for example not only has a Point Value for it's ranges, but OCV/DCV limits, active points in a power, SPD range, etc. It's a Level system in every meaning of the word except perhaps advancement (as they don't explictly address it) but even that's easily handled by the included guidelines.

I think a more open view of things could result in some interesting outcomes. Just a bit out of the box while keeping some of the lessons of what came before.

From what else I've heard of HERO, these caps sound roughly similar to M&M's power levels (in that they are a cap on individual powers, and especially numbers) which I think of as a hybrid according to the rules as written, but which lean even further towards levels in the rules as played (since it's in players' best interest to max a few things out, rather than dipping a few points in a lot of places).

I don't think the existence of hybrids invalidates the categories, and I do think people find reasons to hybridize things regardless of the terminology being used. It's not uncommon at all to see skills, levels, and featlike entities in the same system (in those closer to the level-based system). And if I'm understanding your comment on HERO, that's at least game number two with a level-like capping mechanism in an otherwise point buy system.

Quote from: RandallS;642862Also to casual players of any level of experience.

I agree, and that's a better way of phrasing what I meant.

Quote from: The Traveller;642721What do levels even mean, the whole concept is an immersion breaker. Individual skills now, that makes sense.

My solution is to have levels in the game world, known to PC's and NPC's alike, sort of like having a college degree credential or being an x-degree mason or black-belt or whatever.  This shouldn't work -- it ought to render the game a lame joke, but in my experience, it seems to work fine.

I have a theory about this, but it's long winded.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;642908My solution is to have levels in the game world, known to PC's and NPC's alike, sort of like having a college degree credential or being an x-degree mason or black-belt or whatever.  This shouldn't work -- it ought to render the game a lame joke, but in my experience, it seems to work fine.

I have a theory about this, but it's long winded.

Make a thread about it! :)

Quote from: -E.;642908My solution is to have levels in the game world, known to PC's and NPC's alike, sort of like having a college degree credential or being an x-degree mason or black-belt or whatever.  This shouldn't work -- it ought to render the game a lame joke, but in my experience, it seems to work fine.

In mine the levels have in-game meaning, from how the world views the character in the traditional apprentice to master scale, and how far and wide your fame has spread once you make it into the heroic levels.

They are a measure of achievement, I see no reason why that can't be the case in game as well as meta-game.

Quote from: -E.;642908My solution is to have levels in the game world, known to PC's and NPC's alike, sort of like having a college degree credential or being an x-degree mason or black-belt or whatever.  This shouldn't work -- it ought to render the game a lame joke, but in my experience, it seems to work fine.

I have a theory about this, but it's long winded.

Cheers,
-E.

2E I think it was had something similar, I vaguely remember seeing titles like 'myrmidon' and 'swordsmaster' in the fighter levels list. The problem with levels isn't just cosmetic though, it's a deep mechanical flaw that affect how the players and characters interact with the game world. You gain power, higher skills and abilities, by doing things that have no direct connection with those skills and abilities. This causes players to act, consciously or otherwise, in an irrational metagaming manner.

Quote from: The Traveller;642921The problem with levels isn't just cosmetic though, it's a deep mechanical flaw that affect how the players and characters interact with the game world. You gain power, higher skills and abilities, by doing things that have no direct connection with those skills and abilities. This causes players to act, consciously or otherwise, in an irrational metagaming manner.

One of the saddest things about the RPG hobby is its tendency to make general statements off of specific examples.

This one by Traveller is a classic case. He attacks classes by assuming that all of them share a specific weakness, when that may well not be the case. The tunnel vision is intense.

Quote from: The Traveller;642877Skills based advancement is even easier to understand since you don't need to abstract anything.

I disagree, GURPS 4e has what I consider an over whelming number of skills, some RPGs have too little skills. After experiencing a number of systems for the past 30 years I found it just one of many things a designer needs to consider to make a RPG approachable and easy to use. That skill advancement is no more intuitive than level based advancement.  

Quote from: The Traveller;642877The amount of prep work depends on the amount of skills in use as well, not even the amount of skills in the game. GURPs is a classic example of just too much of everything. Yes I know you can trim it down to size but still.

The only difference from a design standpoint between levels and skills based advanced is granularity. With levels you get a package of increased capabilities all at once. Which skills based advancement can be down to a percentage point in an individual skills.

If level based advancement is not realistic than that a problem of the design not connecting back to reality. If it not understandable than likely the designer would not have been able to make an understandable skill advancement system either.

Levels can be added to any skill advancement design by simply defining levels as a X number of skill improvements. And classes can be defined as being Y set of skills. This can be further refined so that you only x improvement in Y skill set at Z level. And it still would be the same RPG (like Runequest, GURPS, etc)

The only clear advantage skill based advancement has over level based advancement is flexibility and customization. Everything else depends on the intent or skill of the designer.

Quote from: The Traveller;642877Levels and classes are not connected in any way, everyone please stop confusing them.

The amount of games where levels are not connected to classes are small. Most of them are d20 spinoffs that were developed started in the 2000s.

Most classic skill advancement RPGs focused solely on classes. Templates, packages, and other methods of wrapping up related skill sets came later.

So it is understandable that people conflate the two and also pointless to expect to distinguish the difference. Especially in this day and age when so many systems have classes, levels, skills, and skill advancement.

Quote from: The Traveller;642921The problem with levels isn't just cosmetic though, it's a deep mechanical flaw that affect how the players and characters interact with the game world. You gain power, higher skills and abilities, by doing things that have no direct connection with those skills and abilities.

Now hold on! If that your issue with level based advancement what you are describing is NOT a problem of fact that the game incorporates levels into its design. But rather how the method of advancing from level to level is designed.

That is a different issue.

Quote from: The Traveller;642921This causes players to act, consciously or otherwise, in an irrational metagaming manner.

A common flaw with 'check' systems like BRP or Stormbringer (early editions anyhow, not sure about later ones) is that people would grope around for excuses to make skill checks where there was little in-game need to in order to get a chance to increase their skill. This also is meta-gaming.

Quote from: estar;642925I disagree, GURPS 4e has what I consider an over whelming number of skills, some RPGs have too little skills. After experiencing a number of systems for the past 30 years I found it just one of many things a designer needs to consider to make a RPG approachable and easy to use. That skill advancement is no more intuitive than level based advancement.

You're saying here that skill advancement is no more intuitive than level advancement because skill advancement is no more intuitive than level advancement. It's nonsensical, when you work on skills or use skills, they improve, this is perfectly intuitive. When you find a big bucket of gold, you can suddenly cast better spells or do that inverted salmon leap backflip strike, this is non intuitive.

Quote from: estar;642925The only difference from a design standpoint between levels and skills based advanced is granularity. With levels you get a package of increased capabilities all at once. Which skills based advancement can be down to a percentage point in an individual skills.

If the actions connected to advancement are not related to what is being advanced, it leads to strange and inexplicable character activities, metagaming.

Quote from: estar;642925The only clear advantage skill based advancement has over level based advancement is flexibility and customization. Everything else depends on the intent or skill of the designer.

And a connection to reality not requiring any suspension of disbelief. And this is to say nothing of effects like mysteriously being able to fall farther and survive than before you found the big bucket of gold.

Quote from: estar;642925The amount of games where levels are not connected to classes are small. Most of them are d20 spinoffs that were developed started in the 2000s.

This is the second time the 'quantity of games' argument has been raised. D&D is generally a shit system for doing anything other than being D&D, yes it dominates the business because its founder essentially invented the hobby, not so much first to market but market builder. That says absolutely nothing about the value or lack thereof of its mechanics.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about a level/class disconnect, I'm talking about taking levels away completely.

Here's how I do it, just to clarify where I'm coming from: skills run from 0 to 10, or possibly higher. If on any skill roll on a d10 you roll a natural 10, you can roll again; if you roll higher than your current skill level, your skill increases by one point.

Optional extras include rolling higher than skill level plus skill difficulty (1-5), open ended, to reflect that advancing in hard skills is harder, adding a tick to your skill description every time you fail an advancement roll to reflect that you learn even when you fail (ticks become a cumultive bonus to your next advancement roll), but basically it's a no-accounting skill advancement system. It's even self-regulating, the higher you are in a skill the less chance you have of advancement.

Training of course has its own set of similar rules.

That's it, no levels, no hint of metagaming, no hit point increases, no spells rising from the ether to lodge themselves in your grimoire, no general heightening of competence. And it works absolutely brilliantly.

Quote from: estar;642925So it is understandable that people conflate the two and also pointless to expect to distinguish the difference. Especially in this day and age when so many systems have classes, levels, skills, and skill advancement.

How can it be understandable, they are obviously two different mechanics. Certainly as far as this discussion is concerned.

Quote from: One Horse Town;642931A common flaw with 'check' systems like BRP or Stormbringer (early editions anyhow, not sure about later ones) is that people would grope around for excuses to make skill checks where there was little in-game need to in order to get a chance to increase their skill. This also is meta-gaming.

Actually no, that's practising your skill, it's pretty logical that skills advance when you use them. I have training rules as a seperate thing from in-action advancement so if someone's trying to game the system they kick in, if needed, although they haven't been yet. I'd imagine anyone wasting time like that would annoy the other players enough to discourage the behaviour, which is exactly what would happen between characters in the game.

Quote from: estar;642930Now hold on! If that your issue with level based advancement what you are describing is NOT a problem of fact that the game incorporates levels into its design. But rather how the method of advancing from level to level is designed.

That is a different issue.

There is nothing analagous to levels in reality, no means by which you suddenly advance in a wide variety of disparate skills and competencies. Doesn't exist, so it doesn't matter what the means of advancement are.

Quote from: The Traveller;642943There is nothing analagous to levels in reality, no means by which you suddenly advance in a wide variety of disparate skills and competencies. Doesn't exist, so it doesn't matter what the means of advancement are.

You made a specific complaint about level advancement that the experience system forces the player to metagame how he roleplays the character. You didn't address that in your reply. Instead you switched back to attacking levels as an abstraction.

You didn't reply to what I was talking about in that post.

I will ask point black what experience system for leveling you feel makes players of that game metagame?

Just in case anyone thinks I'm unreasonably coming down on their favourite game system like a ton of bricks, I am providing many reasons for my opinions, and arguing on that basis. I'm not just saying something is crap, I'm explaining why it's crap. More power to people who enjoy those games regardless, I hold nothing against them.

Quote from: estar;642958You didn't address that in your reply. Instead you switched back to attacking levels as an abstraction.

You didn't reply to what I was talking about in that post.

I most certainly did. If levels are always an abstraction the means of advancing in levels must always be an abstraction.

Quote from: estar;642958I will ask point black what experience system for leveling you feel makes players of that game metagame?

I've already explained it many times in this thread, gold for XP is the chief offender, but it doesn't really matter. The most logical XP incrementer should be achieved goals of various sorts, but even that doesn't explain why skills advance when they were never used in a particular session. Levels generally are a terrible mechanic.

Quote from: The Traveller;642936You're saying here that skill advancement is no more intuitive than level advancement because skill advancement is no more intuitive than level advancement. It's nonsensical, when you work on skills or use skills, they improve, this is perfectly intuitive. When you find a big bucket of gold, you can suddenly cast better spells or do that inverted salmon leap backflip strike, this is non intuitive.

Two things in your reply here

First it is not circular at all. It individual preference that determines which is more intuitive. I have a gaming friend that despise level system as much as you do, the rest of the group just rolls their eyes at the issue.


Second, the real complaint you have is buried in the last sentence. You find it immersion breaking that getting a ton of xp from finding a bucket of gold allows a character a leap in capabilities (however large). OK while still a preference issue, it is more understand than your blanket statements against levels earlier.

The abstraction behind finding the bucket of gold and BOOM! You are a better spellcaster isn't the fact you find the bucket of gold. Rather it represents the fact you have been successful in the TIME you spent adventure. As the symbol of success the gold is translated to XP which in turn increases your capabilities of your character.

The point of my reply isn't that you should like it but rather there is a rational reason why the D&D xp system works the way it does. That it greatly abstracts character improvement because the designers felt the game was more playable that way.

Quote from: The Traveller;642936If the actions connected to advancement are not related to what is being advanced, it leads to strange and inexplicable character activities, metagaming.

Which is a problem in of itself not a consequence of using a level advancement as part of your design. Instead of berating levels focus on your specific complaints about the above.

Quote from: The Traveller;642936This is the second time the 'quantity of games' argument has been raised. D&D is generally a shit system for doing anything other than being D&D, yes it dominates the business because its founder essentially invented the hobby, not so much first to market but market builder. That says absolutely nothing about the value or lack thereof of its mechanics.

Being the builder of the market is just an opportunity for dominance, it doesn't assure. D&D endures because it design was flexible enough to allow for a large variety of campaigns, yet simple enough for novices to grasp and play. In short D&D is a rare of same of a market founder getting it right almost from the get go. I say almost right because was what really sealed D&D's dominance was the combination of Basic D&D and the AD&D hardbacks. OD&D + Supplement was a bit of a mess and while enough to get the boom going it was the clarity and organization of the later versions that allowed D&D to retain its dominance.

As for being shit for playing anything D&D, I disagree with that. I played a large variety of systems for over 35 years. In 1987 if you asked me that class and level sucked compared skill based, I would say absolutely. But since I saw the emergence of Packages and Template for skill based system and their utility. I learned more how other refereed older D&D.

Now my view is that none of it matter as far a trying to run a realistic game. It solely up to the referee to make that happen. That end all that matters is what system you prefer and how much work are you willing to do with your preferred system.

I have successfully run the same types of campaign in the Majestic Wilderlands using Swords & Wizardry and GURPS and currently doing that now. So my conclusions are based on actual play and not talking out of my ass.

Quote from: The Traveller;642936Keep in mind I'm not talking about a level/class disconnect, I'm talking about taking levels away completely.

I understand, what I don't think you understand is that your problem isn't with levels but rather how you advance in level. A different issue than a general condemnation of levels.

Quote from: The Traveller;642936Here's how I do it, just to clarify where I'm coming from: skills run from 0 to 10, or possibly higher. If on any skill roll on a d10 you roll a natural 10, you can roll again; if you roll higher than your current skill level, your skill increases by one point.

....

That's it, no levels, no hint of metagaming, no hit point increases, no spells rising from the ether to lodge themselves in your grimoire, no general heightening of competence. And it works absolutely brilliantly.

Simple and I see no real stumbling blocks, I prefer the bell curve of GURPS as a better reflection of how the world works myself but difference between that and what you describe is inches.

The problem I been having with GURPS and other skill based systems is that characters advance too fast in relation to in-game time. The way I manage my campaign with my players often means we are lucky to get a day or two of in-game time finished. They want to play out each any every minute of the day following up on the various schemes they got going.

So I liked how Runequest advancement work, which is similar to yours. So I adapted it to GURPS. Players get a 1 point per session. They also get a point in their skill if they roll a critical success on that skill. Finally at the end of the session they get to try to roll over any skills they used (a failure) and they get a point. The advancement for this campaign has been much better.

Quote from: The Traveller;642962I most certainly did. If levels are always an abstraction the means of advancing in levels must always be an abstraction.

I've already explained it many times in this thread, gold for XP is the chief offender, but it doesn't really matter. The most logical XP incrementer should be achieved goals of various sorts, but even that doesn't explain why skills advance when they were never used in a particular session. Levels generally are a terrible mechanic.

First off personally I use my own system for awarding XP in a D&D game. One that I honed since the early 80s. The simple explanation is that players get rewarded for achieving goals, that they set for themselves, and/or overcoming a serious complication (combat is only one example). No XP for monster, treasure, or gold in my game. Although if becoming wealthy is a personal goal of your character you will get a nice award when you do find a nice horde of gold.

Having said that, while I don't use the traditional D&D XP system I have come appreciate it virtues and understand why it works the way it does.

Quote from: estar;642973First it is not circular at all. It individual preference that determines which is more intuitive. I have a gaming friend that despise level system as much as you do, the rest of the group just rolls their eyes at the issue.

No, intuitive in the common understanding means it makes sense, and is therefore easier for players to learn. Advancing skills by using them or training in them is optimally intuitive, any other method must therefore be less optimal.

Quote from: estar;642973The abstraction behind finding the bucket of gold and BOOM! You are a better spellcaster isn't the fact you find the bucket of gold. Rather it represents the fact you have been successful in the TIME you spent adventure. As the symbol of success the gold is translated to XP which in turn increases your capabilities of your character.

My reading is that the original designers of D&D picked levels out of a hat then went into increasingly convoluted contortions to build on that decision, in a similar vein to magic users that can't wear armour. Everything else is post facto justification. If you want to emulate medieval superheroes, that's fine and what D&D does, but it's not for everyone. A lot of gamers haven't experienced much else in fact.

Quote from: estar;642973Being the builder of the market is just an opportunity for dominance, it doesn't assure.

In this case it is what happened, it doesn't mean the mechanics are particularly good, just good enough. D&D's biggest advantage was and is the gigantic library of setting information, spells, monsters and treasures built up over time. I recall reading that the 2E monster list was the longest single page on wikipedia. That's quite something.

Quote from: estar;642973I understand, what I don't think you understand is that your problem isn't with levels but rather how you advance in level. A different issue than a general condemnation of levels.

I understand what you're saying perfectly well and I'm not about to repeat myself for a third time.

Quote from: estar;642973So I liked how Runequest advancement work, which is similar to yours. So I adapted it to GURPS. Players get a 1 point per session. They also get a point in their skill if they roll a critical success on that skill. Finally at the end of the session they get to try to roll over any skills they used (a failure) and they get a point. The advancement for this campaign has been much better.

It is self regulating, characters advance much more quickly at lower skill levels than at higher (in skills they use regularly), and if you use the optional difficulty rules the process becomes more paced again.

Simple, clean, intuitive, no accounting advancement that doesn't promote metagaming. Plus rolling a natural 10 becomes a cause for celebration regardless of the situation, which is something I like.

Quote from: estar;642980First off personally I use my own system for awarding XP in a D&D game. One that I honed since the early 80s. The simple explanation is that players get rewarded for achieving goals, that they set for themselves, and/or overcoming a serious complication (combat is only one example). No XP for monster, treasure, or gold in my game. Although if becoming wealthy is a personal goal of your character you will get a nice award when you do find a nice horde of gold.

That's probably the best way to use XP if you have to.

Quote from: estar;642980Having said that, while I don't use the traditional D&D XP system I have come appreciate it virtues and understand why it works the way it does.

This is the thing though, the way it works is largely arbitrary, always has been, just like the rest of the half assed mechanics in D&D. All of these can be justified with enormously elaborate  essays, in the same way that you can justify anything with enormously elaborate essays, but it doesn't make them any less half assed.

Quote from: One Horse Town;642931A common flaw with 'check' systems like BRP or Stormbringer (early editions anyhow, not sure about later ones) is that people would grope around for excuses to make skill checks where there was little in-game need to in order to get a chance to increase their skill. This also is meta-gaming.

Is true, I remember that we used to hire an NPC to lug around various weapons for us so we could get skill checks on one and then swap to another.


In addition to this flaw there's the fact that if just fails genre expectations. Imagine you're running... oh let's pick a classic: Flash Gorden. You've spent the first 10 adventures running through jungles and city scapes, crossing ray guns and fists with Ming's thugs.

But now you've reached the epic space chase and battle part of the adventure- and haven't leveled those skills by even one point. So you're running Flash who jumps into his rocket, and instead of the epic chase/combat he's suppose to have- he's crashed into the twin spires and kicked off a 9-11 on Mango.

Joy.

And that's just the start of how 'Skill Checks' fail.

Quote from: beejazz;642870I think when most people talk about a level system, they're talking about an explicitly levelled system, which has enough mechanical distinction to merit a distinct term.

I think it gets a bit fuzzy around the edges, but using the term for point-buy games is maybe stretching it too far. Power is measurable in point-buy games, but you can spend points on anything so it doesn't have exactly the same advantages/limitations as your classic D&D approach, where 'level' probably gives an idea of combat ability and other things not so much.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;642829I can think of some class systems without levels, but the converse is harder to come by; care to name some? I can only think of 2 of any significance, but one is sort of bad in character generation (d20 CoC), and the other is a bit of a stretch calling it level based (M&M).

Maybe Savage Worlds, if you squint a bit. Simplified point system, with abilities gained each 5 XP and the XP grand total giving a "Rank" which limits what abilities a character can select, like not having  a "Frenzy" edge or "Burst" power until you hit Seasoned, and having only one stat increase possible per rank.

Quote from: gleichman;642831Any game where creator creation using points is a level only game by another name. In HERO for example you can build a character with say 50 points. That could also be called a 50th level character.

In the same way that one can convert dollars or euros to pounds on the assumption that "pound" means "16 oz. weight."

JG

Quote from: The Traveller;6429212E I think it was had something similar, I vaguely remember seeing titles like 'myrmidon' and 'swordsmaster' in the fighter levels list.

That was the Gygax AD&D, actually.

QuoteThe problem with levels isn't just cosmetic though, it's a deep mechanical flaw that affect how the players and characters interact with the game world. You gain power, higher skills and abilities, by doing things that have no direct connection with those skills and abilities. This causes players to act, consciously or otherwise, in an irrational metagaming manner.

"It's not as if I shall be on about the countryside when I spot a rabid hydra, which I will then summarily dispatch, and then think, 'My gods, killing that reptilian horror gave me the most insightful revelation about the quantum nature of reality!'"
-Varsuuvius

Quote from: One Horse Town;642931A common flaw with 'check' systems like BRP or Stormbringer (early editions anyhow, not sure about later ones) is that people would grope around for excuses to make skill checks where there was little in-game need to in order to get a chance to increase their skill. This also is meta-gaming.

The FASA Star Trek game is much the same way.  Of course my group plays a Klingon campaign, so the "Marksmanship, Modern" and "Personal Combat, Armed" skills get a lot more rolls than "Transporter Systems Technology" or "Negotiation/Diplomacy."

JG

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;643018I think it gets a bit fuzzy around the edges, but using the term for point-buy games is maybe stretching it too far. Power is measurable in point-buy games, but you can spend points on anything so it doesn't have exactly the same advantages/limitations as your classic D&D approach, where 'level' probably gives an idea of combat ability and other things not so much.

Estar and I on the same page against the world...

There are Class System where you can spend 'points' on anything, that's not a defining limit. Add in such things as HERO Package Deals and the practical limit of what happens if you should spread your points too far and the result really isn't any different at all.

Quote from: gleichman;642997And that's just the start of how 'Skill Checks' fail.

Indeed. You start getting characters with sub-optimal skills in the group attempting skills, when there are other members in the party who have a higher chance of success, just in order to get a skill check.

Why would you let the 3rd best medic treat you when the other 2 are right there? Would you trust your life in a car chase to the worst driver?

Quote from: Drohem;642912Make a thread about it! :)

I kinda did...

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24097

Quote from: gleichman;642913In mine the levels have in-game meaning, from how the world views the character in the traditional apprentice to master scale, and how far and wide your fame has spread once you make it into the heroic levels.

They are a measure of achievement, I see no reason why that can't be the case in game as well as meta-game.

That's a good point.

I think there are some (subtle / possible) differences. In real life degrees are given by certified agencies. In the game I recently ran, they were innate -- you got enough experience, you went up a level.

This is a somewhat academic distinction, since actually having a credential rarely matters outside of a job interview, but it would, in theory, be a bit less immersive the way I was doing it.

But like I said, it didn't end up mattering.

Quote from: The Traveller;6429212E I think it was had something similar, I vaguely remember seeing titles like 'myrmidon' and 'swordsmaster' in the fighter levels list. The problem with levels isn't just cosmetic though, it's a deep mechanical flaw that affect how the players and characters interact with the game world. You gain power, higher skills and abilities, by doing things that have no direct connection with those skills and abilities. This causes players to act, consciously or otherwise, in an irrational metagaming manner.

I see what you're saying -- although if I'm reading you right, that doesn't have anything to do with levels per se, right? I mean if a game system makes you a better fighter based on how many good friends your character has, you're saying it would drive weird meta-game, friend-making behavior... and that would be the case no matter whether the game uses levels or not.

I'm not convinced that reward systems actually drive player behavior all that much.

I'm sure that for some people they do -- but in most of my games, I see players act overwhelmingly from the standpoint of their character and the game world. I've found in-game mechanical rewards to be far less effective than simply enjoying immersive play.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: gleichman;643117Estar and I on the same page against the world...

There are Class System where you can spend 'points' on anything, that's not a defining limit. Add in such things as HERO Package Deals and the practical limit of what happens if you should spread your points too far and the result really isn't any different at all.

True. There's a continuum though and while we could argue about where to draw the line, past a certain point the term gets diluted to the point it becomes useless - so I'd prefer not to put the line there. No point arguing with people using different terms, though.

Quote from: -E.;643127I'm not convinced that reward systems actually drive player behavior all that much.

I'm sure that for some people they do -- but in most of my games, I see players act overwhelmingly from the standpoint of their character and the game world. I've found in-game mechanical rewards to be far less effective than simply enjoying immersive play.

I did a blog post (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2012/12/do-rewards-matter.html) saying much the same. This thread however made me recall our experience with Skill Check systems (CoC, RuneQuest) and there it made a significant impact.

XP for Gold, XP for Monsters, XP for Time played- none of that affected it as no matter the source, we could still advance our characters as we wished.

But Skill Check? No, for the reasons I already noted it had to alter how we played or we couldn't have the characters we wanted. This is what Skill Checks do, it's the intent of the mechanic.

The impact was too negative by far and we quickly abandoned those games.

Quote from: gleichman;642997And that's just the start of how 'Skill Checks' fail.

If the game was truly a simulation of a "real" world then it would include all the little bits that people to brush up, hone, or learn various skills and skill check would work. But RPGs don't and very properly does not simulate every minute of every day.

Which is why Skill Checks alone will fail as a advancement system. Which is why when I adopted it for GURPS I also still award a base 1 pt per session and for every 40 days of in-game time the characters get 1 pt as per the on-the-job training rules.

Quote from: gleichman;643133I did a blog post (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2012/12/do-rewards-matter.html) saying much the same. This thread however made me recall our experience with Skill Check systems (CoC, RuneQuest) and there it made a significant impact.

XP for Gold, XP for Monsters, XP for Time played- none of that affected it as no matter the source, we could still advance our characters as we wished.

But Skill Check? No, for the reasons I already noted it had to alter how we played or we couldn't have the characters we wanted. This is what Skill Checks do, it's the intent of the mechanic.

The impact was too negative by far and we quickly abandoned those games.

I could see that -- I don't doubt that a rigid system (e.g. the Skill Checks) would either drive behavior or drive people away from the game.

Maybe it's more that my experience is more the opposite -- if you give people across-the-board increases in ability (i.e. Level Up), you get less metagame behavior than if you have specific increases for specific behaviors.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: The Traveller;642981No, intuitive in the common understanding means it makes sense, and is therefore easier for players to learn. Advancing skills by using them or training in them is optimally intuitive, any other method must therefore be less optimal.

Apprentice, Journeyman, Master
Med Student, Resident, Doctor
Private, Corporal, Sergeant
High School, College, Graduate School
Rookie, Cop, Detective, Lieutenant, Chief
Acolyte, Priest, High Priest
and so on

People understand levels as intuitively as they do skills. It pervades our thinking due to human incessant need to categorize things. D&D Levels originate in the same way and can be seen in the level titles of the original edition.

Again it is you that finds skills based advancement more intuitive, a personal preference and nothing more. This is not true of others.

Quote from: The Traveller;642981My reading is that the original designers of D&D picked levels out of a hat then went into increasingly convoluted contortions to build on that decision, in a similar vein to magic users that can't wear armour. Everything else is post facto justification. If you want to emulate medieval superheroes, that's fine and what D&D does, but it's not for everyone. A lot of gamers haven't experienced much else in fact.

Simply not true, D&D levels originated in Chainmail convention of referring to a Hero as being worth 4 figures, and a Super-Hero worth 8 figures combined with the five different wizards levels in the fantasy supplement. Arneson expanded on that which was incorporated in Gygax's D&D draft.

This is documented and discussed in detail in John Peterson's Playing at the World in section 3.2.3.1

Quote from: The Traveller;642981In this case it is what happened, it doesn't mean the mechanics are particularly good, just good enough. D&D's biggest advantage was and is the gigantic library of setting information, spells, monsters and treasures built up over time. I recall reading that the 2E monster list was the longest single page on wikipedia. That's quite something.

2E was well after D&D secured it dominance. While late 70s D&D had a lot of material compared to its rivals which enabled to remain dominant that it combined a straightforward to learn set of rules that were easily customized with house rules. But the killer app that truly kept D&D at the top was the simplicity of the dungeon for novice referees. Just make a maze with rooms, number them, write down their contents, and play. Not other adventure form that D&D rivals tried to promote comes close in simplicity and expandability as the dungeon that was at the heart of D&D.

Quote from: -E.;643127I'm not convinced that reward systems actually drive player behavior all that much.

I'm sure that for some people they do -- but in most of my games, I see players act overwhelmingly from the standpoint of their character and the game world. I've found in-game mechanical rewards to be far less effective than simply enjoying immersive play.

I disagree that mechanical rewards don't drive player actions. If there's a spell they can't cast or a princess that can't be rescued because the resident ogre mage is too tough, they are going to want to level up and meet the challenge.

These rewards and levels are deeply and intrinsically mechanically linked in D&D and derivatives - there are things you just cannot do at a low level, and it's perfectly natural for players to want to do it all. So they will metagame one way or another to advance their characters.

And levels are in no way neccessary, in my system you start out quite competent, and while skills do advance, a new character joining the group isn't going to be out of place beside a three year veteran character. If you want better skills, practise them or pay a master to train you, if you want a certain spell, learn it from someone or something, if you want more hit points you're out of luck, buy bigger armour. It works really well.

Quote from: The Traveller;642962I've already explained it many times in this thread, gold for XP is the chief offender, but it doesn't really matter. The most logical XP incrementer should be achieved goals of various sorts, but even that doesn't explain why skills advance when they were never used in a particular session. Levels generally are a terrible mechanic.

Most games allow for this, though.

In pure point based systems, there is rarely a rule requiring you to spend your earned experience (or character points or whatever) on the skills you used in that session. If anything, class and level based systems are usually lesser offenders here, because your Fighter is guaranteed to learn how to kill better with his next level, and he probably killed to get to that level...same with the wizard and casting spells and so on.

Quote from: estar;643134If the game was truly a simulation of a "real" world then it would include all the little bits that people to brush up, hone, or learn various skills and skill check would work. But RPGs don't and very properly does not simulate every minute of every day.

Indeed.

Along those lines is the simple fact that in the real world, even combat skills are not for the most part 'learned on the job'. They are extensively trained and practiced before being used under serious conditons.

A sniper just out of training is a *good* shot. A Navy pilot having completed training is a *good* pilot. Experience may will improve them (or it may well not) in some areas, while age will hinder them in others- for the same skills.

Hawkings didn't become good at math by preventing the rise of Cthulhu. He did it by doing math problems under safe and boring conditions.

The subject is complex and isn't one that can be covered by simple skill checks.

Linking skill improvement to adventures isn't really about simulation at all, it's about rewarding play. And frankly rewards are best kept simple and in line with the desires of the players- not the god of Simulation.

Quote from: The Traveller;642985This is the thing though, the way it works is largely arbitrary, always has been, just like the rest of the half assed mechanics in D&D. All of these can be justified with enormously elaborate  essays, in the same way that you can justify anything with enormously elaborate essays, but it doesn't make them any less half assed.

Well your sentiment is why Chivarly & Sorcery and Runequest were developed. The result wasn't D&D's demise but an expansion in the variety of types of RPGs.

You are trying objectively say X is better than Y in terms of RPG design when it is a preference issue.

1) You claim D&D design was arbitrarily designed. However its documented history show that it developed by choices based on actual play and what worked and what didn't work.

2) You claim that skill based advancement is objectively more intuitive than level based advancement despite being told that people think in level of advancements all the time.

3) You criticize levels wholesale yet when you talk about specifics it about how you advance in levels i.e. gold for experience not the levels themselves.

4) You ignore the fact that many skill based games offer packages, templates, profession. That they also offer follow-on packages you can add to your character. Which in spirit replicates the level system of D&D.

5) That the hobby and market hasn't agreed with your conclusions since the beginning of its existence. D&D and its variants has never been toggled from its perch as the world's most popular roleplaying game. When the latest D&D proved unpopular what knocked it off its perch? Pathfinder a D&D variant. While many mock mass appeal it does hold its own truth, stuff with mass appeal work because they get things right not because that they get things wrong.

Quote from: The Traveller;643139I disagree that mechanical rewards don't drive player actions. If there's a spell they can't cast or a princess that can't be rescued because the resident ogre mage is too tough, they are going to want to level up and meet the challenge.

These rewards and levels are deeply and intrinsically mechanically linked in D&D and derivatives - there are things you just cannot do at a low level, and it's perfectly natural for players to want to do it all. So they will metagame one way or another to advance their characters.

And levels are in no way neccessary, in my system you start out quite competent, and while skills do advance, a new character joining the group isn't going to be out of place beside a three year veteran character. If you want better skills, practise them or pay a master to train you, if you want a certain spell, learn it from someone or something, if you want more hit points you're out of luck, buy bigger armour. It works really well.

Your example doesn't work for me -- in the games I've run (levels or not), the players would probably respond to an above level challenge in a huge variety of ways before leveling up so they could beat it.

They could

• Ransom her back
• Hire an an army to rescue her
• Stage a distraction while the thief sneaks in and rescues her
• Pretend to be tougher than they are and try to intimidate the Ogre Magi into releasing her
• Find the OM's natural enemies and develop an alliance of some kind to pressure the OM into giving her back
• Attack the Ogre Magi, but do so in a way that amplifies their abilities (e.g. an ambush) so they can defeat him
• Etc, etc, etc.

All of these are better than leveling up since leveling up takes time and takes them away from the Ogre-Princess scenario... and while they're off leveling, things could "progress" (e.g. Princess for Dinner).

To be clear, I'm good with levels, and I'm good with no levels. The game I'm running this weekend doesn't have them. The long campaign I ended a couple of years ago did (and the players went from Level 0 to Level 11). My experience is that they don't actually make all that much of a difference in how people engage with the game.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;643132True. There's a continuum though and while we could argue about where to draw the line, past a certain point the term gets diluted to the point it becomes useless - so I'd prefer not to put the line there. No point arguing with people using different terms, though.

In math, if one formula produces the same outcome as another, you label it A=B and go on to the next question.

That's almost the case here, and all Level vs. Point System does is define the details of the method. The outcome (especially with all the hybrid systems these days) aren't that far apart.


Now the details do matter. And I don't feel that HERO System (Points) produces the same results as Age of Heroes in all ways. Age of Heroes is self-regulating and will produce suitable characters no matter what as long as the rules are followed. Meanwhile HERO System requires a lot of effort on the GM's part to make sure what's created fits his campaign and world.

The final outcome is identical, but the amount of work getting there is very different indeed.

Side Note: The advantage of HERO is that it's less work to create a new standard for a new campaign and world. I'd need a new campaign supplement with new classes and abilities to use AoH for sci-fi, for HERO- I just need the core book as normal.

Quote from: estar;643138Apprentice, Journeyman, Master
Med Student, Resident, Doctor
Private, Corporal, Sergeant
High School, College, Graduate School
Rookie, Cop, Detective, Lieutenant, Chief
Acolyte, Priest, High Priest
and so on

I've already mentioned these so you're actually making my point for me. These are collections of skills, you don't advance in them by abstract actions, you advance by using the skills until your skills meet a certain standard. And once again, these work just as well in non level systems as systems that use levels.

Metagaming of one sort or another is the inevitable result of too much abstraction. I do not think that is a good thing.

Quote from: estar;643138Simply not true, D&D levels originated in Chainmail convention of referring to a Hero as being worth 4 figures, and a Super-Hero worth 8 figures combined with the five different wizards levels in the fantasy supplement. Arneson expanded on that which was incorporated in Gygax's D&D draft.

This is documented and discussed in detail in John Peterson's Playing at the World in section 3.2.3.1

Sounds fairly pulled out of a hat to me. Don't forget we're talking about a game where the combat rules were based on Arneson's civil war game, Ironclads, which was about ship to ship battles. This was not a well planned endeavour.

Quote from: estar;6431382E was well after D&D secured it dominance.

Perhaps I should have clarified, the massive volume of material granted D&D its momentum in later years. It gained initial dominance because it was the market. This isn't like someone inventing a new kind of toaster, it's someone inventing the concept of bread. Being first to market doesn't guarantee dominance, which is what you seem to think I'm saying, being the market does.

If you're trying to say D&D persisted because of its kickass ruleset, well I merrily disagree.

Quote from: estar;643138While late 70s D&D had a lot of material compared to its rivals which enabled to remain dominant that it combined a straightforward to learn set of rules that were easily customized with house rules. But the killer app that truly kept D&D at the top was the simplicity of the dungeon for novice referees. Just make a maze with rooms, number them, write down their contents, and play. Not other adventure form that D&D rivals tried to promote comes close in simplicity and expandability as the dungeon that was at the heart of D&D.

What do dungeons have to do with anything?

Quote from: The Traveller;643139These rewards and levels are deeply and intrinsically mechanically linked in D&D and derivatives - there are things you just cannot do at a low level, and it's perfectly natural for players to want to do it all. So they will metagame one way or another to advance their characters.

Or you, as the referee, can treat levels as representing training and experience and the resulting D&D campaign runs no different from a metagame standpoint than a GURPS campaign. Something that I have done in actual play for the past 6 years and still doing today.

If it is a problem then it is the referee that is the source of the issues and he needs to fix how he runs the campaign and stop blaming the rules.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146I've already mentioned these so you're actually making my point for me. These are collections of skills, you don't advance in them by abstract actions, you advance by using the skills until your skills meet a certain standard. And once again, these work just as well in non level systems as systems that use levels.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146Metagaming of one sort or another is the inevitable result of too much abstraction. I do not think that is a good thing.

I disagree based my experience in playing the same setting with the same players in campaigns using D&D and comparing their behavior in campaigns using GURPS, Harnmaster, Fantasy Hero.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146Sounds fairly pulled out of a hat to me. Don't forget we're talking about a game where the combat rules were based on Arneson's civil war game, Ironclads, which was about ship to ship battles. This was not a well planned endeavour.

The system of rating armor was based on Ironclads, hit points and the rest come from a variety of sources including a extrapolation of Chainmail rules from 1 hit = 1 death to 1 hit = 1d6 dmg and 1d6 hp. I refer you to the Peterson's Playing at the World section 3.2.2

Quote from: The Traveller;643146Perhaps I should have clarified, the massive volume of material granted D&D its momentum in later years. It gained initial dominance because it was the market. This isn't like someone inventing a new kind of toaster, it's someone inventing the concept of bread. Being first to market doesn't guarantee dominance, which is what you seem to think I'm saying, being the market does.

It called the First Mover advantage  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_mover)and it not always retained. Just because D&D created the market didn't assure it's dominance. Other factors had to come into play in order for that to happen.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146If you're trying to say D&D persisted because of its kickass ruleset, well I merrily disagree.

And the rest of the hobby disagrees with you as shown by the popularity of D&D and its variants.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146What do dungeons have to do with anything?

Because throughout the 70s, and early 80s the dungeon was promoted being THE quintessential D&D adventure and this was a key element in retaining it's first mover advantage.

Competing RPGs in a effort to distinguish themselves from D&D did not promote dungeons and their alternative wasn't as compelling. The funny thing is that often despite their effort to be different their most popular products wound up being dungeons like the Big Rubble for Runequest.

Quote from: estar;643150And the rest of the hobby disagrees with you as shown by the popularity of D&D and its variants.

Popularity has many more influences than quality. And some times low quality is it's own selling point especially if the advantages of a higher quality item are beyond the user's ability to take advantage of.

IMO I think you were correct in pointing out how accessible the D&D model was to those of other games. It was almost boardgame level- enter dungeon and take loot any way you can, while the other games demanded the creation of worlds just to start.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;643140Most games allow for this, though.

In pure point based systems, there is rarely a rule requiring you to spend your earned experience (or character points or whatever) on the skills you used in that session. If anything, class and level based systems are usually lesser offenders here, because your Fighter is guaranteed to learn how to kill better with his next level, and he probably killed to get to that level...same with the wizard and casting spells and so on.

Point based systems are not linked to classes are not linked to levels. Many very popular games exist which never use experience points.

Quote from: estar;643143Well your sentiment is why Chivarly & Sorcery and Runequest were developed. The result wasn't D&D's demise but an expansion in the variety of types of RPGs.

You are trying objectively say X is better than Y in terms of RPG design when it is a preference issue.

So 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?

Quote from: estar;6431431) You claim D&D design was arbitrarily designed. However its documented history show that it developed by choices based on actual play and what worked and what didn't work.

Arbitrary 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.

Quote from: estar;6431432) You claim that skill based advancement is objectively more intuitive than level based advancement despite being told that people think in level of advancements all the time.

And round and round we go...

Quote from: estar;6431433) You criticize levels wholesale yet when you talk about specifics it about how you advance in levels i.e. gold for experience not the levels themselves.

I'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.

Quote from: estar;6431434) You ignore the fact that many skill based games offer packages, templates, profession. That they also offer follow-on packages you can add to your character. Which in spirit replicates the level system of D&D.

Ah 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.

You're saying that since paper and furniture both usually involve wood, a desk should be just as good at being a notebook as a notebook. You can't reduce everything to its lowest possible level and still make a meaningful comparison.

'In spirit' my muscular buttocks.

Quote from: estar;6431435) That the hobby and market hasn't agreed with your conclusions since the beginning of its existence.

And 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?

Quote from: -E.;643144To be clear, I'm good with levels, and I'm good with no levels. The game I'm running this weekend doesn't have them. The long campaign I ended a couple of years ago did (and the players went from Level 0 to Level 11). My experience is that they don't actually make all that much of a difference in how people engage with the game.

You'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.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;643018Maybe Savage Worlds, if you squint a bit. Simplified point system, with abilities gained each 5 XP and the XP grand total giving a "Rank" which limits what abilities a character can select, like not having  a "Frenzy" edge or "Burst" power until you hit Seasoned, and having only one stat increase possible per rank.

I think Savage Worlds is a strong case of one of the differences I think gleichman is glossing over. Though there is no automatic progression on "level up" (which is more of a sign of being unambiguously level-based),  certain edges are reserved for higher levels of proficiency. Some SW settings bypass this, however.

I could see a system like Bushido being the basis of a classless lev-based system. Bushido levels serve as a modifier for otherwise point-built characters; it would be easy to strip the classes out.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;643155I think Savage Worlds is a strong case of one of the differences I think gleichman is glossing over. Though there is no automatic progression on "level up" (which is more of a sign of being unambiguously level-based),  certain edges are reserved for higher levels of proficiency. Some SW settings bypass this, however.

I don't feel that such a concern is that significant, or even special. In many point systems certain abilities are so expensive, and dependent upon good values in other areas- that only high pointed characters can make use of them and/or afford them.

Same thing, different road to get there.

Quote from: gleichman;643152Popularity has many more influences than quality. And some times low quality is it's own selling point especially if the advantages of a higher quality item are beyond the user's ability to take advantage of.

Yes this is an old debate that reaches far beyond roleplaying games as shown by by discussion people have about Apple iOS devices versus Blackberry, Android, and other competing device. Or further back VHS versus Betamax, or Windows vs Mac OS, etc, etc.

My viewpoint that a good simple design is often harder to make than good complex design with many options. D&D was lucky in that it very quickly evolved into it classic form (OD&D plus Greyhawk) which nailed the sweet spot.

Chivalry 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.

Which is of course where levels tend to be a bit more realistic than a straight skill buy system.  My favorite example being the GURPS player who drops 40 points on Guns skill and then keeps dropping all their experience points into it.  True there's diminishing returns but in reality, life generally requires people to spend time doing more than one thing and attempting to cram too hard for too long frequently means hitting the wall and progressing no further.

I mostly see levels as a shiny bauble to dangle in front of my oh so distractable players.  It keeps them focused.  I like GURPS but I've seldom had a solid campaign of it.  Most of my players simply need the sense of progress levels provide.

Quote from: estar;643147Or you, as the referee, can treat levels as representing training and experience and the resulting D&D campaign runs no different from a metagame standpoint than a GURPS campaign.

Except for the part where players go hunting big piles of gold or whatever.

Quote from: estar;643150 The system of rating armor was based on Ironclads, hit points and the rest come from a variety of sources including a extrapolation of Chainmail rules from 1 hit = 1 death to 1 hit = 1d6 dmg and 1d6 hp. I refer you to the Peterson's Playing at the World section 3.2.2

Okay, I refer you to Arneson's interview:

QuoteI adopted the rules I'd done earlier for a Civil War game called Ironclads that had hit points and armor class. It meant that players had a chance to live longer and do more. They didn't care that they had hit points to keep track of because they were just keeping track of little detailed records for their character and not trying to do it for an entire army.

Quote from: estar;643150It called the First Mover advantage  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_mover)and it not always retained. Just because D&D created the market didn't assure it's dominance. Other factors had to come into play in order for that to happen.

What happened with D&D was very unusual, the FTMA process usually describes someone making a better type of diaper for the diaper market. In the case of RPGs, it was more like being the first one to invent the idea of board games. Technically it was the first to enter the games market with board games, but realistically that means little since the gaming market was massively fragmented, including things like sports, so basically it created its own market.

Quote from: estar;643150And the rest of the hobby disagrees with you as shown by the popularity of D&D and its variants.

By this standard once again (and again and again) microsoft windows is the best operating system ever.

Good luck with that.

Quote from: estar;643159My viewpoint that a good simple design is often harder to make than good complex design with many options.

I think the truth of that statement is limited to say the least. Which is more difficult? Making a nicely balanced and functional hammer, or making a dependable and fast sports car?

What remains hard under any conditions is getting the customer to desire your product- be it hammer or sports car.

Quote from: estar;643159D&D was lucky in that it very quickly evolved into it classic form (OD&D plus Greyhawk) which nailed the sweet spot.

Yes.

And it was luckly in that many of its low quality features appealed to the buyer. They wanted the safety and easy of HP no matter its faults, for it had one advantage- they made getting loot and killing monsters easier. And people like the easy button.

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. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP8sofAN4xc) 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. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP8sofAN4xc) 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.

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

Some good things have come from it (for me at least).

Quote from: -E.;643215Now 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?

Yes, I found it hard to credit that someone could hold two completely opposing opinions in the same sentence almost, a better way to put it would have been 'are you taking the piss'.

Quote from: -E.;643215The 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.

Central pillars - levels in D&D
Fringe rules - to quote you "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."

So why will "Extreme mechanics" affect player choices while central pillars won't? Levels have a direct bearing on how easily characters die, why should they be any less influential than rules which indicate how quickly characters die?

To repeat myself, which this thread seems to involve a great deal of, are you taking the piss?

Quote from: -E.;643215You'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,

Yeah, you've lost the argument.

Quote from: The Traveller;643161Okay, I refer you to Arneson's interview:

QuoteI adopted the rules I'd done earlier for a Civil War game called Ironclads that had hit points and armor class. It meant that players had a chance to live longer and do more. They didn't care that they had hit points to keep track of because they were just keeping track of little detailed records for their character and not trying to do it for an entire army.

Time for a visit from the tangential historical detail monster.

Arneson's memory does not serve him well here. Less charitably, one could say that Arneson's memory about what was in Chainmail, versus what he invented himself, became decidedly less reliable after Arneson started suing TSR over D&D. (As did Gary's over certain things Arneson did in fact invent.)

Anyway, the contention that Chainmail didn't have armor class is a common enough canard that I put up some documentation about it here - and yes, even the term "armor class" is a Chainmail term:

http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2012/10/armor-class-in-chainmail.html

Chainmail exhibits all of the qualities that Arneson describes in your quote: because Heroes took multiple hits to kill, because wearing more armor avoids blows, you had the chance to live longer and do more. Arneson did prefer a different approach to hit points, but not the one that D&D ultimately adopted.

While it's always hard to provide evidence that something doesn't exist, I have pretty extensive access to Arneson's unpublished games, notes, etc., and I'm not aware he ever designed a game about, let alone entitled, ironclads. And I did ask him about it myself.

Now that much said, Arneson was a huge fan of Fletcher Pratt's naval wargame, and there is a sort of armor class in Fletcher Pratt (ultimately deriving from Jane) with various thicknesses and resistances to penetration from shells. Probably Arneson is hazily remembering some ACW-based Pratt game he ran once. There's certainly truth in the notion that prior to Chainmail, there were games in various settings that had quantified armor ratings that prevented hits. However there's absolutely no grounds to believe that D&D has hit points or armor class for any other reason than that Chainmail had them.

Enough tangent.

A nice juicy RPGSite thriller, no quarter spared, ad hominen attacks with colorful pithy industrial language, an emotive topic laid bare.

So I find levels useful as a shorthand way of juding relative power. I prefer a hybrid with a level and skills approach. Much like Bushido, ah poor under rated FGU..., level advances you in your core competancy and you get points to spend on other stuff. So your wizard can weild a sword its just going to imply that Gandalf was a few levels higher than Boromir....

I hate gold for XP as its simply crazy, but on its own that doesn't mean either xp or levels are crazy, simply that monetary reward gained is a very poor indicator of experience, after all I work for an Evil American Bank so THIS I KNOW.....

now I have never expereinced a game in which PCs strive for adventure to get experience to get levels. In 33 years of gaming its always been PCs strive for adventure to  gave the king, or rescue the Dark god from the annoying holy order that have imprisoned him. My own 13th level thief hasn't recieved any XP or gone up a level for 10 years because we just kind of forget. I don't think in this we are so very exceptional (unlike in every other way :) ) That is why groups that level up when the GM feels like it or when the quest is completed or after 10 sessions or when dave comes back from holiday are actually more common than groups where Drafin The Black has 12,347 Xp and wants the DM to tell him the XP he gets for killing that Wyvern in the last fight and insists on adding his 10% bonus to earned xp due to 17  Strength...... etc etc .....
So Levels are fine they are a good rough way of knowing that 4 5th level PCs should kill 5 orcs easily and will loose two PCs to a fight with 5 Ogres.
that why some degree of class balance across all levels is to me desireable because what is the use of a level system if a 4th level fighter is equal to a 7th level Wizard and a 15th level wizard is equal to a 4 10th level fighters and a small army working together and ...etc etc ....

Quote from: One Horse Town;643217Some good things have come from it (for me at least).

It started out well enough.

Quote from: KenHR;643229It started out well enough.

I think outside of Traveller it's been worthwhile, and there's been a bit of good stuff in some of the replies to him.

Quote from: KenHR;643229It started out well enough.

That...seems to happen a lot.

Quote from: gleichman;643231I think outside of Traveller it's been worthwhile, and there's been a bit of good stuff in some of the replies to him.

Yes, I agree.

Quote from: gleichman;643231I think outside of Traveller it's been worthwhile, and there's been a bit of good stuff in some of the replies to him.

Yeah, there has been some really good stuff here.  Just weary of the same old arguments being trotted out again...they were old when I started playing in '83 or so with my brothers...and, looking back, yeah, those arguments are just being made by a single party.

Quote from: The Traveller;643222Yes, I found it hard to credit that someone could hold two completely opposing opinions in the same sentence almost, a better way to put it would have been 'are you taking the piss'.


Central pillars - levels in D&D
Fringe rules - to quote you "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."

So why will "Extreme mechanics" affect player choices while central pillars won't? Levels have a direct bearing on how easily characters die, why should they be any less influential than rules which indicate how quickly characters die?

To repeat myself, which this thread seems to involve a great deal of, are you taking the piss?


Yeah, you've lost the argument.

I'm not taking any piss, I assure you.

And I'm happy to explain what I see now that you've clarified your terms -- thanks for that.

Why I think highly-lethal or highly-non-lethal combat rules can affect play:
In my experience (AD&D, D&D3.5, various flavors of Gamma World, GURPS across a variety of settings, Traveler, Hero, DC Supers, Marvel Universe, Morrow Project, Paranoia, and many, many others) death in combat usually means exiting the game for at least awhile, and often the loss of a character the player has grown attached to.

And (IME) most combat is somewhat, but not extremely threatening -- Toon and Morrow Project are examples at opposite extremes. But for virtually all the games in the middle (D&D at any level, Hero, GURPS, all the supers games I've played, etc.) play is "about the same."

How the PC's approach combat will, IME, vary by genre, more so than the game rules excepting ultra-deadly or totally-non-lethal cases:

Here's a real-life example
In Hero system hand weapons aren't very deadly or crippling (unless you play with a bunch of special rules). When we played Super Heroes, we did a ton of combat because that's what the genre calls for. When we used the same system with the same optional rules for other genres, combat generally fell to what the genre expectations were.

And that includes situations where the players might have found it convenient to use hand-guns as knock-out weapons (knowing they were highly unlikely to kill)  -- I recall a single incident from more than 20 years ago, where a player wanted to shoot someone valuable because he knew he'd just knock him out, and the players decided that even though he was right about the rules, it shouldn't be allowed to happen -- the genre expectations overode the game mechanics.

Levels Not Driving Play
I've played a bunch of D&D (Levels) and a bunch of GURPS Fantasy and Fantasy Hero (no levels), and I don't see much of a difference. I see player decisions driven by character conception and in-game situation. I don't see people spending all their time grinding low-level monsters for nothing but the XP the way MMORPG players sometimes do. I don't see a pre-occupation with leveling up as a way to deal with an immediate situation the way you postulated in your scenario.

My conclusion is that -- outside of the far ends of the bell curve -- game rules are subordinate to things like character, genre, and situation, and I don't have any experience with games where the leveling rules are so out-there that they actually override those things.

There are edge cases: 1st level AD&D is ultra-deadly, any-hit-can-kill-you, and it plays a lot more like Morrow Project... but once you're past 2nd or 3rd level, combat is about as deadly as it is in most every game and that doesn't change: at-level encounters at 10th level are about as likely to kill you as at-level encounters at 5th level. Level rules (outside of the first couple) don't, in my experience, make a huge difference and don't over-ride other non-rule considerations.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Drohem;643257Yes, I agree.

Gleichman is just pissed because I've had him on ignore for a while, there's only so much of threads being turned into castle gleichenstein that can be taken.

Quote from: KenHR;643265Yeah, there has been some really good stuff here.  Just weary of the same old arguments being trotted out again...they were old when I started playing in '83 or so with my brothers...and, looking back, yeah, those arguments are just being made by a single party.

This is the same site that had a wizards versus fighters thread not so long ago. I think that argument even predates D&D. Feel free to read another if this one makes you uncomfortable, by all means.

Quote from: -E.;643278I'm not taking any piss, I assure you.

And I'm happy to explain what I see now that you've clarified your terms -- thanks for that.

Why I think highly-lethal or highly-non-lethal combat rules can affect play:
In my experience (AD&D, D&D3.5, various flavors of Gamma World, GURPS across a variety of settings, Traveler, Hero, DC Supers, Marvel Universe, Morrow Project, Paranoia, and many, many others) death in combat usually means exiting the game for at least awhile, and often the loss of a character the player has grown attached to.

And (IME) most combat is somewhat, but not extremely threatening -- Toon and Morrow Project are examples at opposite extremes. But for virtually all the games in the middle (D&D at any level, Hero, GURPS, all the supers games I've played, etc.) play is "about the same."

How the PC's approach combat will, IME, vary by genre, more so than the game rules excepting ultra-deadly or totally-non-lethal cases:

Here's a real-life example
In Hero system hand weapons aren't very deadly or crippling (unless you play with a bunch of special rules). When we played Super Heroes, we did a ton of combat because that's what the genre calls for. When we used the same system with the same optional rules for other genres, combat generally fell to what the genre expectations were.

And that includes situations where the players might have found it convenient to use hand-guns as knock-out weapons (knowing they were highly unlikely to kill)  -- I recall a single incident from more than 20 years ago, where a player wanted to shoot someone valuable because he knew he'd just knock him out, and the players decided that even though he was right about the rules, it shouldn't be allowed to happen -- the genre expectations overode the game mechanics.

Levels Not Driving Play
I've played a bunch of D&D (Levels) and a bunch of GURPS Fantasy and Fantasy Hero (no levels), and I don't see much of a difference. I see player decisions driven by character conception and in-game situation. I don't see people spending all their time grinding low-level monsters for nothing but the XP the way MMORPG players sometimes do. I don't see a pre-occupation with leveling up as a way to deal with an immediate situation the way you postulated in your scenario.

My conclusion is that -- outside of the far ends of the bell curve -- game rules are subordinate to things like character, genre, and situation, and I don't have any experience with games where the leveling rules are so out-there that they actually override those things.

There are edge cases: 1st level AD&D is ultra-deadly, any-hit-can-kill-you, and it plays a lot more like Morrow Project... but once you're past 2nd or 3rd level, combat is about as deadly as it is in most every game and that doesn't change: at-level encounters at 10th level are about as likely to kill you as at-level encounters at 5th level. Level rules (outside of the first couple) don't, in my experience, make a huge difference and don't over-ride other non-rule considerations.

Cheers,
-E.

Why not just remove the levels entirely so, if it makes that little of a difference to gameplay? Jibbajabba apparently has in a roundabout fashion, and hasn't missed them, I do the same except more explicitly.

Quote from: The Traveller;643292Why not just remove the levels entirely so, if it makes that little of a difference to gameplay? Jibbajabba apparently has in a roundabout fashion, and hasn't missed them, I do the same except more explicitly.

When I play a game (D&D) with levels, I use levels -- when I play GURPS or Hero (no levels), I don't have levels.

I don't see much of a difference in play (from the levels), but I'd prefer not to mess around with the game rules -- I mean, what advantage would I get?

I'm generally not a big fan of tinkering with game systems I purchase.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643295When I play a game (D&D) with levels, I use levels -- when I play GURPS or Hero (no levels), I don't have levels.

I don't see much of a difference in play (from the levels), but I'd prefer not to mess around with the game rules -- I mean, what advantage would I get?

I'm generally not a big fan of for tinkering with game systems I purchase.

Cheers,
-E.

Well we differ there. Jibbajabba has been at 13th level for the last ten years, using neither the XP or the level advancement rules, at a level of competence that suits him. Lots of people say that certain levels have a sweet spot, and this is the method I use - straight out the starting gate, characters in my game are well able to hold their own, reaching the same conclusion from a different angle. I'd say this supports my opinion on the value of levels in a game system.

But as I've said from the start, more power to those who enjoy them, and those who play the game as written, I hold it against nobody.

Quote from: The Traveller;643292This is the same site that had a wizards versus fighters thread not so long ago. I think that argument even predates D&D. Feel free to read another if this one makes you uncomfortable, by all means.

It doesn't make me "uncomfortable."  I don't mind discussing old subjects, it's when the same.  Fucking.  Arguments. are trotted out time and time again that it just gets tiresome.  It'd be refreshing to see a fresh angle once in a while, is all I'm saying.  Plenty of others in this thread had one.

But anyway, back to the dead horse.

Quote from: KenHR;643304But anyway, back to the dead horse.

Why, has someone strapped you to it?

Quote from: The Traveller;643301Well we differ there. Jibbajabba has been at 13th level for the last ten years, using neither the XP or the level advancement rules, at a level of competence that suits him. Lots of people say that certain levels have a sweet spot, and this is the method I use - straight out the starting gate, characters in my game are well able to hold their own, reaching the same conclusion from a different angle. I'd say this supports my opinion on the value of levels in a game system.

But as I've said from the start, more power to those who enjoy them, and those who play the game as written, I hold it against nobody.

I think the rules account for starting at an appropriate, arbitrary level (I think I ran my last D&D 3.5 game starting at level 4) -- that's not what I'd think of as "removing" them.

As for staying at one power-level for an entire game: I've run games where the PC's didn't really increase in power level, when that was appropriate for the genre. I can't recall if I ever ran one in a level-based system (is D20 Modern level based?), but I could easily see a modern-day game where level advancement was slow because nothing was getting XP.

That wouldn't be different than, say, the same game run in GURPS with very few experience points given, no?

In any case, neither of these modifications are the "removal" of levels -- they're just games where the level settings are set by the GM -- something entirely allowable in the rules as written.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: The Traveller;643306Why, has someone strapped you to it?

I'm enjoying the other responders' posts quite a bit. :)

Quote from: -E.;643308I can't recall if I ever ran one in a level-based system (is D20 Modern level based?), but I could easily see a modern-day game where level advancement was slow because nothing was getting XP.

Characters in Age of Heroes can easily cap out their level for extended periods or even forever depending upon what threats they face and the risks taken.

For superhero games, there typically is never advancement. A result that I consider in keeping with the genre.

Quote from: -E.;643308In any case, neither of these modifications are the "removal" of levels -- they're just games where the level settings are set by the GM -- something entirely allowable in the rules as written.

If you aren't going to use a rule why have it, it may as well not exist. I don't think we're wholly in disagreement here to be honest.

Quote from: KenHR;643309I'm enjoying the other responders' posts quite a bit. :)

Words from the peanut gallery, always a valuable contribution to any thread.

Quote from: The Traveller;643313Words from the peanut gallery, always a valuable contribution to any thread.

No I get the last word

Quote from: The Traveller;643313If you aren't going to use a rule why have it, it may as well not exist. I don't think we're wholly in disagreement here to be honest.

Writing a rule is really a game-design consideration, no?

Whether or not a rule shows up in a given game is up to the GM. GURPS has literally dozens, if not hundreds of source books, each with lists of rules, right?

I might not use the GURPS magic rules in my GURPS Cops game, but that doesn't mean that GURPS magic is valueless, does it?

I'm not sure what you're saying here...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: gleichman;643311Characters in Age of Heroes can easily cap out their level for extended periods or even forever depending upon what threats they face and the risks taken.

For superhero games, there typically is never advancement. A result that I consider in keeping with the genre.

Yeah, exactly -- in my post apocalypse game, the PC's didn't go up levels unless they went after serious challenges... which led to some long stretches where they stayed mostly the same.

Agree with you about super heroes (although in Champions, I'd give out a point or two a session -- I think that many characters in the source fiction *do* get better over time, even if it's a very slow progression).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643329I'm not sure what you're saying here...

Traveller seems to be saying that if Levels don't affect your play, there is no reason to have Levels.

He's more interested in scoring debate points than actually examining what people are saying. If he stopped for a moment and listened, he'd know that no one has said that Levels don't effect the play of the game- they've said that they don't cause the automatic negative meta-gaming effects he claims they do.

While tangential to the current conversation; someone mentioned needing examples of abilities increasing levels.  The prime example, for me is, Legend of the Five Rings. The system allows increasing skills and attributes to directly increase rank (level) in the character's school (class).  Once you reach a certain threshold of 'insight' (experience spent), the character gains his new nifty unique abilities.

Quote from: -E.;643330Yeah, exactly -- in my post apocalypse game, the PC's didn't go up levels unless they went after serious challenges... which led to some long stretches where they stayed mostly the same.

Agree with you about super heroes (although in Champions, I'd give out a point or two a session -- I think that many characters in the source fiction *do* get better over time, even if it's a very slow progression).

Cheers,
-E.

Most superheroes stay about the same. Some get temporary boosts.
Some superheroes improve, and some get insane power boosts due to horrid writing. They actually gave the Flash, already quite powerful, an infinite mass punch (lol...physics called and wants it's logic back) and stealing other peoples speed. Over kill much?

 

But most stay the same.

Quote from: gleichman;643334Traveller seems to be saying that if Levels don't affect your play, there is no reason to have Levels.

He's more interested in scoring debate points than actually examining what people are saying. If he stopped for a moment and listened, he'd know that no one has said that Levels don't effect the play of the game- they've said that they don't cause the automatic negative meta-gaming effects he claims they do.

... if you're right, he needs to get out of the point-scoring business, because his point's completely lost on me.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643363... if you're right, he needs to get out of the point-scoring business, because his point's completely lost on me.

Cheers,
-E.

Gleichman is many things but rarely right. I put him on ignore after he came out with a statement to the effect that all role playing gamers who didn't follow his one true way were limp wristed homosexuals or similar. Or possibly just all role playing gamers period. Maybe he's put on his good boy pants since after realising he went too far, but whatever.

Levels are a dodgy mechanic, among many dodgy mechanics in D&D, a game which was put together in an ad hoc and patchy fashion to begin with and hasn't really gotten much more graceful with age. The last version met with resounding contempt from even this forum's mainstays for example, while it spawned a group of fans apparently known as the 4vengers, and what a fucking goldfish bowl that is.

While I respect that you've chosen to engage with this assertion rather than passive aggressive from the cheap seats like kenHR, I don't really hold out much hope of convincing some of the more strident adherents to D&D of this, seeing as it is a near religious article of faith for them, even going so far as to attempt to merge the seperate concepts of class and level.

I do understand why people use levels, and I don't hold it against them, but the core problem of disconnected mechanics leading to characters acting with regard to the metaconcept of levels rather than in character remains in my experience an issue, although I've deliberately avoided recounting tales of the many groups I know etc etc. When advancement is disconnected to what is being advanced, you have a problem with the mechanic. It may represent, or emulate, fine, but I'm not saying it is optimal unless you want to emulate a D&D game.

Some have made peace with that by simply not using the levelling up or XP rules, this supports what I'm saying.

Most of this is just repeating myself for the fifth time, so unless anyone has anything new to add, I'll leave it there. And no, personal abuse isn't adding anything new.

:D

Quote from: The Traveller;643373Gleichman is many things but rarely right. I put him on ignore after he came out with a statement to the effect that all role playing gamers who didn't follow his one true way were limp wristed homosexuals or similar. Or possibly just all role playing gamers period. Maybe he's put on his good boy pants since after realising he went too far, but whatever.

Levels are a dodgy mechanic, among many dodgy mechanics in D&D, a game which was put together in an ad hoc and patchy fashion to begin with and hasn't really gotten much more graceful with age. The last version met with resounding contempt from even this forum's mainstays for example, while it spawned a group of fans apparently known as the 4vengers, and what a fucking goldfish bowl that is.

While I respect that you've chosen to engage with this assertion rather than passive aggressive from the cheap seats like kenHR, I don't really hold out much hope of convincing some of the more strident adherents to D&D of this, seeing as it is a near religious article of faith for them, even going so far as to attempt to merge the seperate concepts of class and level.

I do understand why people use levels, and I don't hold it against them, but the core problem of disconnected mechanics leading to characters acting with regard to the metaconcept of levels rather than in character remains in my experience an issue, although I've deliberately avoided recounting tales of the many groups I know etc etc. When advancement is disconnected to what is being advanced, you have a problem with the mechanic. It may represent, or emulate, fine, but I'm not saying it is optimal unless you want to emulate a D&D game.

Some have made peace with that by simply not using the levelling up or XP rules, this supports what I'm saying.

Most of this is just repeating myself for the fifth time, so unless anyone has anything new to add, I'll leave it there. And no, personal abuse isn't adding anything new.

:D

I'm sorry you don't like levels -- I can understand having a personal dislike of certain mechanics and how that can really impact enjoyment of a game.

I'm blessed in that I enjoy (or, at worst, am not bothered by) a lot of things about D&D that really irritate some folks. While I mostly game with friends, when I do want to game with new groups it's easy to find people to play with.

If you'd like to enjoy D&D more, here's a couple of things I'd suggest

1) Don't look at the rules -- when the game isn't fun, the problem is with the people at the table. Levels don't lead to "characters acting with regard to the metaconcept" -- the problem is the people running those characters or the guy who' s unhappy with how his buddies are choosing to play the game.

2) Don't look at the mechanics as "dodgy" -- the game has stood the test of time and is by far the most played RPG in history. It's mechanics are obviously delivering fun for the overwhelming majority of gamers, so by any objective measure, they're great. I'm not saying you don't get to have an opinion about the game or a personal dislike of it, but if you want a greater experience out of D&D, starting with a greater appreciation of it would be a place to start.

D&D's not my most-favorite game in the world, by any means -- I didn't even play 4.0, for example, but my hobby owes a lot to it, and it's nice to acknowledge that.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643384If you'd like to enjoy D&D more, here's a couple of things I'd suggest

I don't think a call to like D&D no matter what and to put the blame for its failures on the players is the best approach. Nor is singing the praises of something simply because it sold well and is popular.

Now it's true that Traveller failures in this thread go beyond D&D and seem to be rather... disconnected from the subject to be honest. And perhaps with respect to him your advise is suited.

But I'd hate to see more widely applied, as I think it's part of the reason people accept bad game design in the first place.

Quote from: gleichman;643410I don't think a call to like D&D no matter what and to put the blame for its failures on the players is the best approach. Nor is singing the praises of something simply because it sold well and is popular.

Now it's true that Traveller failures in this thread go beyond D&D and seem to be rather... disconnected from the subject to be honest. And perhaps with respect to him your advise is suited.

But I'd hate to see more widely applied, as I think it's part of the reason people accept bad game design in the first place.

I'm not calling for anyone to like D&D -- not at all. For one thing, it would be hypocritical: I didn't play 2.x and I didn't play 4 -- I didn't think I'd like either much.

And I wouldn't blame it's players for finding (for example) AD&D's grappling rules to be broken.  AD&D, especially, had a number of kludges in it that were nobody's fault but the author's (and earlier editions spelled Lair wrong).

So yeah -- I'm not calling for people to suspend judgement of D&D or declaring it a perfect game beyond all games.

However: I'm skeptical of any framework that declares the iconic elements (levels, classes, hit points, etc.) to be objectively broken.

Here's why: Outside of rules that just don't work, I think judging the quality of a game is a bit like judging the quality of a work of art, which is to say, there are not many good objective measures and it's incredibly hard for critics to factor out personal taste.

My conclusion is that -- for movies, books, songs, etc... and (probably) for RPGs, the best test is the test of time. D&D passes. And while popularity by itself may not be a virtue, sustained popularity indicates (to me) that a work / game / whatever is effective at connecting with people.

I think that's a mark of quality.

I would also look at how it's influenced other works and media. D&D has set the standard for a variety of computer games as well as fictional works -- it has been hugely influential. Those iconic elements have translated (in many cases, with very little change) into a variety of influenced works.

To me, that says they were on to something.

None of this precludes criticisms of the sort you've leveled at it -- it also doesn't mean D&D can't be improved on... but I think concluding that D&D is a low quality game (as a whole) misses the bigger picture: we're about four decades into table-top RPGs existing... and only one or two with them (or their long shadow in the form of video games and secondary works) being a part of popular culture. It's early days.

So I'm recommending that (everyone) approach judgement of classic games -- ones that have been around a long time in much the same form as they started with -- with a bit of humility. I'm not a huge fan of Dickens, but his work will probably still be read when I'm long forgotten. I judge his writing low quality at my peril.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643454My conclusion is that -- for movies, books, songs, etc... and (probably) for RPGs, the best test is the test of time. D&D passes. And while popularity by itself may not be a virtue, sustained popularity indicates (to me) that a work / game / whatever is effective at connecting with people.

I think that's a mark of quality.

I think that's the fallacy of assuming popularity==quality, and nothing more.

Further I think it's a bad thing no matter where and for what it's applied. History is full of examples where people hung on to outdated and even harmful things because they were popular- and it continues to be full of such examples as we move into the future.

The cycle is self-reinforcing by its very definition: "I think D&D is good because it's popular, therefore I increase it's popularity making it even better...".

Beyond stating that however there's little more to be said. If one buys into the fallacy there's nothing I can do to change that.

Quote from: gleichman;643456I think that's the fallacy of assuming popularity==quality, and nothing more.

Further I think it's a bad thing no matter where and for what it's applied. History is full of examples where people hung on to outdated and even harmful things because they were popular- and it continues to be full of such examples as we move into the future.

The cycle is self-reinforcing by its very definition: "I think D&D is good because it's popular, therefore I increase it's popularity making it even better...".

Beyond stating that however there's little more to be said. If one buys into the fallacy there's nothing I can do to change that.

There are a few working definitions of quality.

• Conformance to requirements for software
• Design within tolerance for certain kinds of engineering
• Defects per million parts for manufacturing processes
• Suitability for purpose along several dimensions for data

I could go on.

While it's tempting to judge RPGs using those, I don't think it can be done. I don't think RPGs have requirements you can test against. I don't think tolerance works, and things like timeliness or completeness that work on data sets are nearly impossible to define for RPGs.

Which is why I conclude we should judge RPGs the way we judge art -- which is either personally / idiosyncratically, or with a canon guarded by critics who provide expert contemporary judgement.

That's how we do it in practice -- critics post reviews of RPGs on the internet.

But without a canon it's hard to distinguish the critics with real insight from the blowhards.

I can only see one operable way out of this: everyone should trust my judgement. I'm a clear thinker who is (nearly uniquely) qualified to judge game-quality by virtue of my scintillating wit, incisive insight, and sublime good taste.

In the absence of a bunch of old, credentialed guys and a formal set of culturally accepted set of games everyone pretty much agrees are of high enough quality to use for judgement, we're left with...

Me.

But that should be enough for anyone, right?

;),
-E.

Quote from: -E.;643460I could go on.

I think we both could.

But I also think each of our positions are clear and can be judged on their own merits without endless repeating them. We are both also firmly committed to them.

So let's not and call it good :)

Quote from: gleichman;643141Hawkings didn't become good at math by preventing the rise of Cthulhu. He did it by doing math problems under safe and boring conditions.

Actually Hawking's calculations and formulae are the only thing preventing the Rise of R'lyeh.

Quote from: CRKrueger;643464Actually Hawking's calculations and formulae are the only thing preventing the Rise of R'lyeh.

Dang it! Now you've done it. The cultists will know who to target!

:eek:

Sigh, our world is not for long now.

Just going by my own gaming experience, players always have something to look forward to, whether it is hitting 14th level so they can Teleport Without Error, or getting 35 Karma Points so they can bond that Power Focus they got from the Universal Brotherhood, or increasing a Cult skill to the requisite ability to begin initiation to a higher mystery.

Now if there are large campaign goals like traveling to the Wyrmtooth Gap and slaying Stonescale the Drake, well characters aren't going there unless they think they have a chance of surviving the trip and the encounter, but that would happen with any advancement system, and is character based.

Skill-based without levels, Skill-based with levels, Level-based without skills, Level-based with skills, I've never seen players change their actions based on mechanical advancement.  In other words, no "Lets take out the bandits first because we're not high enough level to take on the Ogre yet."  It's more along the lines of "Let's get the reward for killing the bandits, so we can buy better armor before we go after the Ogre." ie. an in-character logical plan.

I will say at this point I find I do prefer skill-based systems to level-based though.

Quote from: gleichman;643462I think we both could.

But I also think each of our positions are clear and can be judged on their own merits without endless repeating them. We are both also firmly committed to them.

So let's not and call it good :)

:)
-E.

Skill based, level based, it's all relative.  RM is a hybrid of skill/level based system, D&D has always been level driven and then RQ has always been skill driven.  Personally it really doesn't matter to me as long as it works properly and the system is logical and intuitive to understand and well laid out in the book, I hate garbled rules, IMO that kills the game over any thing based on the games system.  Currently it seems to me there are more Level based games out there than skill based ones.

Quote from: estar;643143You are trying objectively say X is better than Y in terms of RPG design when it is a preference issue.
(the) hobby and market hasn't agreed with your conclusions since the beginning of its existence. D&D and its variants has never been toggled from its perch as the world's most popular roleplaying game. When the latest D&D proved unpopular what knocked it off its perch? Pathfinder a D&D variant.

To put it another way, D&D 4 was more of a variant system from D&D Classic than Pathfinder was.

JG

If you divorce it from the old D&D context, in which it indicates a package of factors in the context of a character type/class, then "level" just indicates some step in the accumulation of other resources.

Each attribute point in The Fantasy Trip, each skill increase (or so many such, or ratings of key skills) in RuneQuest, so many character points in Champions or GURPS: there are a lot of yardsticks one can use!

Im (more or less) with Traveller on this one. I dont think Level-based systems are inherently flawed or something, but they bother me on a level Skill-based ones dont. Levels (and classes) always felt artificial and boardgamey to me. Childish even. But I keep using em sometimes, for its already cited advantages.

About RQ skill-check system: If I aint mistaken, it was possible to train (= just spend time and money with a teacher) and increase its rating to some degree (75% I think ?). After that it only improved through use. And Lore skills could get to 100% without practical use, because of their academic nature.

Quote from: increment;643225Time for a visit from the tangential historical detail monster.

Arneson's memory does not serve him well here. Less charitably, one could say that Arneson's memory about what was in Chainmail, versus what he invented himself, became decidedly less reliable after Arneson started suing TSR over D&D. (As did Gary's over certain things Arneson did in fact invent.)

Anyway, the contention that Chainmail didn't have armor class is a common enough canard that I put up some documentation about it here - and yes, even the term "armor class" is a Chainmail term:

http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2012/10/armor-class-in-chainmail.html

Chainmail exhibits all of the qualities that Arneson describes in your quote: because Heroes took multiple hits to kill, because wearing more armor avoids blows, you had the chance to live longer and do more. Arneson did prefer a different approach to hit points, but not the one that D&D ultimately adopted.

While it's always hard to provide evidence that something doesn't exist, I have pretty extensive access to Arneson's unpublished games, notes, etc., and I'm not aware he ever designed a game about, let alone entitled, ironclads. And I did ask him about it myself.

Now that much said, Arneson was a huge fan of Fletcher Pratt's naval wargame, and there is a sort of armor class in Fletcher Pratt (ultimately deriving from Jane) with various thicknesses and resistances to penetration from shells. Probably Arneson is hazily remembering some ACW-based Pratt game he ran once. There's certainly truth in the notion that prior to Chainmail, there were games in various settings that had quantified armor ratings that prevented hits. However there's absolutely no grounds to believe that D&D has hit points or armor class for any other reason than that Chainmail had them.

Enough tangent.

If I haven't said so before, welcome to theRPGsite!