So we dance around it, - and have so for years without really discussing it (or at least I don't recall seeing it talked about) - SCALABILITY.

I've noticed that when we get into out average firefight about what we like/dislike about various games and editions within those games, and keep fighting down to the atomic detail of gaming taxonomy until we're a seething mass of pre-biota flailing our pseudo-pods at one another - but I noticed that we rarely directly discuss the scalability of games and the mechanics inherent to them.

Sure we'll nickle-and-dime our mechanics debates to death, but that's actually what occludes us from the forest because of the tree in front of us. How much of our various heated discussions stem from our inherent tastes in scalability? (lets answer this last)

1) Exactly how do you like your systems to scale? How much is too much? How narrow is too narrow?

D&D (d20) is a good example of a mechanical system that, due to it being one of the oldest systems, has been stretched to cover every genre from low-fantasy normal people to godlike supers. But personally I think it's a bridge too far without a lot of gymnastics. Though the OSR and Mutants and Masterminds share DNA - they're very much different species.

2) Do you want *maximum* scalability from your system? Or do you think specialized systems are better for genre emulation?

3) When considering the first two questions - how much do you think the usual debates and arguments from the various Edition/Genre/Systems wars are more directed towards tastes of scale?

4) For fun: What systems are your go-to systems for maximum scalability and what ranges to they handle very well. OR which systems are narrow in scale that do it better than anything else that you simply wouldn't use another system for that has a wider range?

Just to clarify, you are talking only genre scalability?  Because I don't care about that much at all.  I do want scalability in number of players supported, number of foes supported, and power level supported.  Obviously, that has a little overlap with genre scalability, but not much.

Define scalability? because how you are using the term isnt how others are using the term. Which is to refer to how a game can scale from man-to-man to scirmish, to batallion, to nation, etc.

Here you are not talking about scale. you are talking about VERSATILITY.(or adaptability) How well a system can be rethemed and retooled to a different setting.

Problem is that is a VERY YMMV thing. One person looks at D&D and can rework it into effectively anything. Someone else looks at it and thinks it can not be used for anything else but fantasy. One person will extrapolate new rules based on whats there. Someone else will just rename stuff, another cant/wont do any of that unless its hard coded into the system allready. On the flipside one person will look at Gurps and make anything. Someone else will draw a blank. Its impossible to tell who clicks to what or how far.

Personally I see D&D as being very versatile as you can build from whats there to create about anything. In some ways it is more versatile than Gurps. but it requires some creativity and possibly some new rules to handle an element. Gurps is very versatile from the opposite direction. It gives you alot of tools and puzzle pieces to fit together. You dont have to do much creating. Just renaming or figuring how X fits into R.

What is a persons threshold for how much footwork or the type of footwork they have to do to adapt a system

2: Depends on if I want a system or a setting? Or both. And the system may be an attractor or repeller to that. I am just not a fan of Gurps. I dont like the system overall. Whereas I found BESM to be ok. I do not think specialized systems are better. They are simply there and someone might come along and decide MERP would be great for running a Star Wars campaign.

3: As said. Everyone has their thresholds of both how they adapt a system and how much they adapt a system. Some of the arguments stem from that. Some people just can not see at all how say D&D can be so versatile.

4: For the most versatility my goto is D&D and Gamma World. With either of those you can generate about any setting imaginable with a little or alot of tweaking. Next up is Marvel Superheroes as by its very nature it can cover anything and it scales well too.

X: and a little quick list of things D&D has been officially adapted to.
Post apoc.
Pulp Heroes
Modern London
Alice in Wonderland
Cross country Car racing
Mecha
Trapped in a VR world
Rock Bands
Space Opera/Planet Romance
Paranormal Investigators.
WWII war
Biopunk
Rapture

And probably more I've missed or forgotten.

I think I get you about scalability. Sorta about how street level WoD, then Aberrant, Scion, and finally Exalted. Yet people notice how... "tiers," (for a better word,) don't play well with others. Basically a discussion about 'buckets of dice and immunities' and how they tend to collide.

For me, d20 3.PF is a good example of how scalability can easily turn into a meaningless treadmill. As is D&D 4e is a good example of how designing for "scalable tiers" can end up being as fun as paint drying. The lesson I learned is at a certain point ("tier,") you are playing a different game entirely and should not even be compared. Basically you are not experiencing meaningful encounters.

However, as much fun there is in Dynasty Warriors ('One Man Kills All of China!') I personally prefer the conceit that eventually sheer numbers washes out individual power. So I did like Pathfinder's Ultimate Campaign Guide(? IIRC) advice that for military campaigns 1:1000 means that individual character dies regardless of level. Which is an unnecessary formality to me, but nice to see; at some point I am not going to mix scales as I see no benefit in doing so.

Actually, I assumed tenbones' OP was asking about "scaleability" in terms of how well a game handles a range of PC power/ability levels.

Quote from: tenbones... from low-fantasy normal people to godlike supers ...

If that's what he meant, I would say that one major thing (of the several) that stops me from playing/running D&D is the range of power levels between starting characters & monsters and "normal human" NPCs, and higher-level PCs, monsters, spells, etc. In one sense, I think the game does allow play at an extreme range of power levels, but on the other hand, I think that doesn't make sense to me as something I can understand as a rational semi-stable game setting, and I don't see how I could run such a campaign the way I like to without being overwhelmed by the complexity and steepness of the power dynamics. At best, if I ran a D&D campaign, it would tend to play out as pretty nasty contest of high-powered NPCs/monsters vying for domination, and PC parties would probably tend to get incidentally squashed or specifically targeted if they survived long enough to be of concern to the stronger elements.

The rate of character advancement and the demographics of who/what has what abilities has always been a major concern to me in running and designing a game world. It seems to me there's always a delicate relationship between rewarding/entertaining players with PC experience/training/accomplishment/power-acquisition, and having a satisfyingly self-consistent and manageable game world with an appropriate range of power levels of inhabitants and how they relate to one another.

So

Quote1) Exactly how do you like your systems to scale? How much is too much? How narrow is too narrow?

I both like to see characters improve with experience, and dislike having them become more powerful than makes sense compared to others in the world. I like it when they can improve in fun, interesting and consistent ways. I dislike it when there's no in-world reason why suddenly the PCs have become notably more powerful than NPCs who have had similar experiences. I like it when PCs can be exceptional but I like them to have specific abilities and several things they don't do so well, so they aren't just great at everything because they're experienced. I sometimes enjoy very strong powers as long as they are specific and interesting and make sense and are being handled in a fair rational way. I tend not to like them when they're generic and too numerous and remove a lot of interesting limits and gameplay elements.

Quote2) Do you want *maximum* scalability from your system? Or do you think specialized systems are better for genre emulation?

Even if I'm right that you mean power levels, I'm not sure I understand what this is asking.

Quote3) When considering the first two questions - how much do you think the usual debates and arguments from the various Edition/Genre/Systems wars are more directed towards tastes of scale?

Assuming still that you mean power level, I think it's at least related to power level. I like GURPS because it does normal people with realistic limits in fantasy/ancient/medieval settings well in gritty combat detail. It's interesting to resolve a bar fight between two drunk jerks, for example. And I like that it feels about right how it plays out if you make up various situations and play them out. I feel like it matters to have the basic ordinary people play out right for people with exceptional abilities to be played out. When a system decides most humans are meaningless mook/fodder and then has abstract power levels in contest with each other, it doesn't feel like the game is about much that's solid to me, and I lose interest quickly.

Quote4) For fun: What systems are your go-to systems for maximum scalability and what ranges to they handle very well. OR which systems are narrow in scale that do it better than anything else that you simply wouldn't use another system for that has a wider range?

GURPS which handles well even improvised weapon content between drunk geriatric cripples, up through heroic but mortal/realistic humans with medieval/ancient weapons really well (IMO). There are various optional rules for various levels of pulp/cinematic/super excesses, but I tend not to use those and think they undermine what I like most about the system.

Tenbones, please define scalability for this thread.

I like dragon scales! But scale armor in AD&D was a bummer.

Quote from: tenbones;1026274So we dance around it, - and have so for years without really discussing it (or at least I don't recall seeing it talked about) - SCALABILITY.

Scalability gets confused with scope. Not many talk about either because they don't know what they mean, or two people just can't seem to agree on what they mean to even begin talking about them. It's much easier to talk about failing rope climb rolls instead.

Anyway, I like rules that scale without having to add new mechanics (supplement books) to those rules. Core books should be able to scale up or down.

If we're talking about tiers of play, I generally prefer the system to handle a single tier only.

Eg lower level loot adventuring in Dnd vs higher level saving the world epicness dnd. So like B/X for example but dont want the whole BXCMI.

I like D&D (all editions, all variants). It scales great IMO, except the advancement mechanics don't work well for mundane or low-powered horror - Call of Cthulu/BRP or even Traveller handles it much better if you want PCs to be normal people forever. But I have used BX D&D with level 1 PCs for a 2 session Game of Thrones type game with 4 hp PCs stabbing each other in the back.

I'm willing to sacrifice playability for scalability.  The only place I really see people wanting scale is in super hero rpgs.  Games that have a large scale tend to not do the low level or high level side of things well.  Like going on a road trip and the best part is just the halfway point.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1026294I think I get you about scalability. Sorta about how street level WoD, then Aberrant, Scion, and finally Exalted. Yet people notice how... "tiers," (for a better word,) don't play well with others. Basically a discussion about 'buckets of dice and immunities' and how they tend to collide.

For me, d20 3.PF is a good example of how scalability can easily turn into a meaningless treadmill. As is D&D 4e is a good example of how designing for "scalable tiers" can end up being as fun as paint drying. The lesson I learned is at a certain point ("tier,") you are playing a different game entirely and should not even be compared. Basically you are not experiencing meaningful encounters.

However, as much fun there is in Dynasty Warriors ('One Man Kills All of China!') I personally prefer the conceit that eventually sheer numbers washes out individual power. So I did like Pathfinder's Ultimate Campaign Guide(? IIRC) advice that for military campaigns 1:1000 means that individual character dies regardless of level. Which is an unnecessary formality to me, but nice to see; at some point I am not going to mix scales as I see no benefit in doing so.

Exactly.

We end up talking past one another on a lot of things because our assumptions of scale are different. D&D for instance is superb at doing Sword-and-Sorcery, low/high fantasy - but at a certain powerlevel it starts to break down.

Part of the issue we see with OSR folks vs. the new generation of players are assumptions about what D&D is supposed to emulate. This is easier (somewhat) to peg down once you apply it to a setting. But in reality, most adventures are relatively setting-free both in the old-school and new-school. But the modern conception of D&D is more likely to be a freakshow which dilutes the wargaming-semi-realistic conceits of the old-school assumptions.

Conversely - Supers is a genre as pointed above that has all these tiers of play built into one game. By definition it almost has to. This is there the rubber hits the road in terms of mechanical expression in a system. Does the system itself handle those tiers well, and does it keep that cohesion throughout those tiers? In a Class-based system like D&D where you're an above average person at level 1, and by level 10 you should be a powerhouse of the realm (at least in the old-school view) and if you get into the high-teens you're a world power dealing with the gods etc. - those are essentially the same tiers of play, relative to the assumed power-levels of the game.

There are modern systems designed to deal with these variations of scale. And there are systems that want to keep a tighter and narrower focus for specific genre emulation.

For example Cyberpunk2020 wants to keep it on the personal scale. Once you start getting into souped-up super-borgs and mini-mecha, it really starts rendering a lot of the core conceits of the game moot.

I think D&D is like this too - but more broad in its application because your level of play has its own conceits. A 10th-lvl fighter is assumed to be festooned with magical items in conjunction with mechanical benefits of level in the modern context, and likewise the challenges he is capable of dealing with are commensurate. Whereas a 1st-lvl fighter would get obliterated instantly.

Then you have things like Savage Worlds which can scale from personal low-fantasy fare with zero-magic and highly-skilled characters are still very killable. To those same characters getting shunted to Rifts and gearing up and can start taking on Kaiju with mountain-shattering power.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1026325Scalability gets confused with scope. Not many talk about either because they don't know what they mean, or two people just can't seem to agree on what they mean to even begin talking about them. It's much easier to talk about failing rope climb rolls instead.

Anyway, I like rules that scale without having to add new mechanics (supplement books) to those rules. Core books should be able to scale up or down.

This is a very good point. I need to ruminate on this.

Yay! I guessed right! What do I win? A D.O.N.G. hat? Perhaps a D.O.N.G. bracelet. Or maybe a D.O.N.G. purse puppy?! :cool:

I feel that scale, like scope, was one of those obvious-to-me, yet undiscussed, issues with campaign management. It's basically the scope of power level and playstyle focus. Not all things can be present, in fact they cannot be if you want to retain meaning.

You cannot have all time and space and culture and world view and power level and widgets and so on, meaningfully present without the mind shutting down from overload. If all is present, essentially nothing is present. It's the basis of contextual composition. The limits help the mind anchor and thus navigate to derive meaning.

Therefore it is important for the GM, manager of the setting's expression, to define values and choose placement. It is akin to (god forbid we end up on a tangential argument about "rpgs as art," but alas...) the artist managing their work through a composition of values (and color, and so on,). At some point you have to tell a certain audience segment that this piece will not cater to such desires; find another campaign that speaks to those, for these are the limits I found meaningful in this construction.

It's about defining what the GM wants to explore and let others play around in. Sometimes the GM is ambivalent or open to suggestion. But in the end a traditional RPG leaves the preparation work upon one presenter to be responsible.

Well, in that case, I'm not sure where I fall, because it's a question I still struggle with (as in, what exactly I want), because of the inherent compromises required.  Consider something as simple as this.  Assume a character in the system can grow from novice to big damn hero (to be deliberately vague):

1. What kind of numbers of lesser beings can the hero reasonably and consistently handle?

2. What kinds of terrible, powerful creatures can the hero have a shot at handling?

Because no matter how you answer that, you have to set the underlying math/system somewhere, and it is bound to not be what some people are expecting.  You get the same kind of issue with, "Can one shot kill, and if so, what are the chances?"  Reason I'm unsure even what I want, is that I don't much care for either extreme.  I don't want the big damn hero mortally afraid of 3 common soldiers, and one unlucky hit away from a crossbow bolt through the throat, but I'm also not terribly fond of big damn hero effectively invulnerable to 30 orcs, either.  I don't want a simulation of realism, but I don't want it dialed up to action movie emulation, either.  It seems to me sometimes that systems try to have it both ways, satisfying no one, me included.  

This feeling is hardly limited to combat.  I have the same reaction to most skill systems--either incredibly punishing to characters or giving away the store.

The point of the rules is to be a tool used to adjudicate what the players do when interact with the setting as their character. If there is a problem with scaling then any answer is useless drivel unless we also ask what are the player doing within the setting.

For example I was talking with a friend and he was complaining about how broken D&D 5th edition was with a 8th level part. But when I dug into what was happening it turned out the referee was generous with the magic item.

So I asked him what a 8th level character is supposed to have in his setting? How did the players wind up with more? Was that reasonable given the circumstances of the campaign at the time? The answer boiled down to the fact there was a little bit of luck and a little bit of foresight on the part of the players to preserved what the found. Now they are at 8th level it coming together for them. The problem was not the rules.

Another example is D&D 3.X use of 1d20+mods versus a target number. The designer built everything as a bunch modifiers that stack on each other for example the to-hit bonus versus armor class. By not considering what is reasonable for a 18th level can do versus a 1st level character. They constructed a system of rules that made it possible for low level/low hit dice to have any effect on higher level/higher hit dice creatures outside of a certain range.

If it doesn't make sense in your setting that a 18th level character can't be damaged by a 1st level character than that mechanic is not going to scale well for you. Most questions of scale can be answering by asking "how would it look if i was really there looking at this". Then modifying the rules to reflect that insight. Or picking a set of rules that work with your assumptions.