Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 13, 2022, 02:01:35 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 13, 2022, 01:26:09 PMDoes More Granularity = More Fun for the Average Player?

Having your character get better is fun. Therefore, the more often you level up the more fun. That's why most video games that have levels have ranges such as 1-50 or even 1-100

Video games have different dynamics than TTRPGs, though. You can spend way more time and plow through way more enemies faster on video games, often without the need to get a group together to play the game (with the exception of MMOs, which themselves encourage plowing through tons of enemies and XP farming with large groups that make the XP gains faster and easier).

That provides way more opportunities for advancement, and changes the focus to more "gamist" styles of play, where level progression or some type of carrot at the end of that stick becomes more desirable when plowing through all that content.

In contrast, a TTRPG session can take hours just to get everyone on the same page and finally start the game. And that's assuming that you already coincided with a date you can all get together and are already there, which can take days or even weeks or months sometimes. And then you have to wait for your turn to do stuff, spend hours on strategy and stuff before you even get into a room or enemy settlement, etc. All of which takes minutes at most in video games, even in online play.

All of this contributes to video game level ranges.

How I consider level in my Majestic Fantasy RPG

Experience
A character's Class Level is representative of the character's life experience. In general, all characters have a class and level. In some cases, hit dice and notes on special abilities may act as a shorthand when the full details of class and level are not needed.

Levels 1 to 2 are considered to be trained apprentices. Characters are nominally capable of doing the job of their class or profession, but still have more to learn before being considered a veteran or fully trained.

Level 3 is where characters are considered professionals within their class or profession. In a guild, this is the point where a character becomes a journeyman and is allowed to take employment with any master willing to hire them. Burglars will now be respected enough to run their own heists. Clerics become full priests of their religion, allowed to officiate at services and ceremonies. Fighters receive their first minor command. Finally, Magic-Users are considered fully trained and ready to make their own way in the world.

Level 6 is where characters are considered to have mastered their profession and ready to assume various leadership roles. In guilds, the character would be considered a master of their profession. Burglars gain control over the jobs and heists done in a neighborhood. A Cleric becomes eligible to be a bishop, responsible for the flock of a small region or city. Fighters start to independently command troops as a captain. Finally, Magic-Users start to take on apprentices to train and to assist them in their expanding array of research.

Level 9 is where the character reaches the pinnacle of their profession and occupies the highest leadership positions. In guilds, the character becomes a grandmaster, either leading the guild or with a place on the council, setting policy for the guild. Clerics become High Priests or Archbishops in charge of their religion's hierarchy for a region or realm. A Fighter would be promoted to general or granted lands to rule as the lord or lady of the land. Finally, a Magic-User would be known as a full wizard and widely respected for their knowledge and skill. They would attract many apprentices and fellow Magic-Users to learn and assist the wizard in their research.

At level 12, the character is considered a paragon of their profession, somebody whose skill and exploits are worthy of being used as an example for others to follow. In modern times, these characters would win the Nobel Prize or be Olympic-caliber athletes.

At level 16, the character becomes more than a paragon and moves into legendary status. Their deeds are famous through the continent or even the world. Consider these on par with our own world's Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, Plato, or Aristotle.

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 13, 2022, 01:26:09 PM
Does More Granularity = More Fun for the Average Player?

I have no idea.  Some degree of finer granularity is a great deal more fun for the typical player that sits at my tables.  Those might not be representative, but it doesn't matter.  The average guy, assuming he is different, isn't there to complain.  Other tables can easily be diametrically opposed on this question.

A more pertinent question is about complexity.  Finer grain always comes with more complexity.  It might be a tiny bit more complexity for a lot more granularity in some cases, but there are, of course, diminishing returns sooner or later.  This is the question that matters to me in my design for players that I'm directly catering to:  Does finer detail X provide sufficient enjoyment to justify its complexity burden?  Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes it seems like it does for awhile, but then we find something else with 20% of the complexity that gives us 80% of the same enjoyment, and out the old way goes.  Because you've got opportunity costs, too, in that every piece of complexity adds up. 

For another table, where the focus for enjoyment is setting a much stricter bar for complexity, a lot of fine grain things are off the table from the beginning.  They've still got the same kinds of trade offs to consider, but the thresholds and calculations are different. 

Not really a big fan of leveled systems. Prowlers lets you select a power level for your game, and everyone is at that power level. Advancement is optional.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 13, 2022, 04:56:19 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 13, 2022, 01:26:09 PM
Does More Granularity = More Fun for the Average Player?

A more pertinent question is about complexity.  Finer grain always comes with more complexity.  It might be a tiny bit more complexity for a lot more granularity in some cases, but there are, of course, diminishing returns sooner or later.  This is the question that matters to me in my design for players that I'm directly catering to:  Does finer detail X provide sufficient enjoyment to justify its complexity burden?  Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes it seems like it does for awhile, but then we find something else with 20% of the complexity that gives us 80% of the same enjoyment, and out the old way goes.  Because you've got opportunity costs, too, in that every piece of complexity adds up.

I agree with your point. Well said.

However, I hope you'll allow me some nitpicking: "Finer grain always comes with more complexity" is not true, and I say that specifically because I prefer a streamlined +1 per level to attack bonuses (e.g., a 13th level fighter has +13 to attack) to the less grainy +2 every three levels (in B/X). TBH I basically build an entire system out of this idea.

Likewise, having 53% skills of a +10 bonus are equally complex, but one is finer grain. Unknown Armies has % skills and low complexity, GURPS uses 3d6 but more complexity.

I do agree that finer grain usually brings some complexity, however.

i dislike lvls altogether but i find players are hooked on them and many other d&d'isms which they require as a sort of rail or they flounder about paralyzed from having too many options.

If I'm playing a game with levels (which isn't what I actually prefer) I like to have levels with a meaningful power-up about once every 4 sessions.  If one plays once a week and a campaign goes for a year, which I understand is typical, that comes to about 12 levels. 

One thing I don't like about D&D and most of its variants is how much the game changes over the leveling span.  One goes from novices to veterans to experts, which is fine, but then on to fantasy superheroes and demigods, which I don't care for.  I would much prefer to become a better and better expert rather than move on to superheroes, both because that's not something I much want to play, and because rules suitable for lower level play start to break at superhero power level.  I think BECMI actually had the right idea, where one you hit a certain level you moved on to a different ruleset which was still D&D, but better suited to that power level.

I also don't care for D&D's thing where fighters automatically become lords and get castles.  Being a leader and having high levels of ability in an adventuring profession don't necessarily go together.  George Washington might have been a high level fighter, but Abraham Lincoln certainly wasn't.  If becoming a leader in the setting is something covered by the rules, I'd rather it not be connected to level at all.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 18, 2022, 02:51:37 AM
If I'm playing a game with levels (which isn't what I actually prefer) I like to have levels with a meaningful power-up about once every 4 sessions.  If one plays once a week and a campaign goes for a year, which I understand is typical, that comes to about 12 levels. 

One thing I don't like about D&D and most of its variants is how much the game changes over the leveling span.  One goes from novices to veterans to experts, which is fine, but then on to fantasy superheroes and demigods, which I don't care for.  I would much prefer to become a better and better expert rather than move on to superheroes, both because that's not something I much want to play, and because rules suitable for lower level play start to break at superhero power level.  I think BECMI actually had the right idea, where one you hit a certain level you moved on to a different ruleset which was still D&D, but better suited to that power level.

I also don't care for D&D's thing where fighters automatically become lords and get castles.  Being a leader and having high levels of ability in an adventuring profession don't necessarily go together.  George Washington might have been a high level fighter, but Abraham Lincoln certainly wasn't.  If becoming a leader in the setting is something covered by the rules, I'd rather it not be connected to level at all.

Novice to Veteran to Expert, pretty well describes the gamut of the power levels that appeal to me in gaming.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 18, 2022, 02:51:37 AM
If I'm playing a game with levels (which isn't what I actually prefer) I like to have levels with a meaningful power-up about once every 4 sessions.  If one plays once a week and a campaign goes for a year, which I understand is typical, that comes to about 12 levels. 

One thing I don't like about D&D and most of its variants is how much the game changes over the leveling span.  One goes from novices to veterans to experts, which is fine, but then on to fantasy superheroes and demigods, which I don't care for.  I would much prefer to become a better and better expert rather than move on to superheroes, both because that's not something I much want to play, and because rules suitable for lower level play start to break at superhero power level.  I think BECMI actually had the right idea, where one you hit a certain level you moved on to a different ruleset which was still D&D, but better suited to that power level.

I also don't care for D&D's thing where fighters automatically become lords and get castles.  Being a leader and having high levels of ability in an adventuring profession don't necessarily go together.  George Washington might have been a high level fighter, but Abraham Lincoln certainly wasn't.  If becoming a leader in the setting is something covered by the rules, I'd rather it not be connected to level at all.

Makes sense, when that's what you want.  Me, I run into the issue that I want the system to scale somewhat past the lower and upper ends of where I plan to use it.  It doesn't have to be perfect or hold up to the same scrutiny that the main power levels do, but I'm not quite in the camp of just applying complete GM fiat to the setting elements that don't fit adventurers.

For example, I don't need rules to handle modifications to attribute scores for children or elders, but I need a little room in the attributes and the design to assign lower scores for something because the character is a child or elderly, and that make a kind of rough sense.  Well same way with power levels.  I'm happy to put in an NPC that's powerful enough in some ways to not exactly follow the rules (though likely weaker in other ways).  I'm happy to put in a monster that has abilities that don't follow the same rules players use.  But I'd like it to be something that fits the same spirit that the rules give to the setting, if not the rules themselves.

I find games that are really focused on compressing everything out of the design that doesn't expressly support the main goal tend to work very well within that main goal, but get brittle fast when you stray outside those lines.  And I'm going to stray.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 18, 2022, 07:43:44 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 18, 2022, 02:51:37 AM
If I'm playing a game with levels (which isn't what I actually prefer) I like to have levels with a meaningful power-up about once every 4 sessions.  If one plays once a week and a campaign goes for a year, which I understand is typical, that comes to about 12 levels. 

One thing I don't like about D&D and most of its variants is how much the game changes over the leveling span.  One goes from novices to veterans to experts, which is fine, but then on to fantasy superheroes and demigods, which I don't care for.  I would much prefer to become a better and better expert rather than move on to superheroes, both because that's not something I much want to play, and because rules suitable for lower level play start to break at superhero power level.  I think BECMI actually had the right idea, where one you hit a certain level you moved on to a different ruleset which was still D&D, but better suited to that power level.

I also don't care for D&D's thing where fighters automatically become lords and get castles.  Being a leader and having high levels of ability in an adventuring profession don't necessarily go together.  George Washington might have been a high level fighter, but Abraham Lincoln certainly wasn't.  If becoming a leader in the setting is something covered by the rules, I'd rather it not be connected to level at all.

Makes sense, when that's what you want.  Me, I run into the issue that I want the system to scale somewhat past the lower and upper ends of where I plan to use it.  It doesn't have to be perfect or hold up to the same scrutiny that the main power levels do, but I'm not quite in the camp of just applying complete GM fiat to the setting elements that don't fit adventurers.

For example, I don't need rules to handle modifications to attribute scores for children or elders, but I need a little room in the attributes and the design to assign lower scores for something because the character is a child or elderly, and that make a kind of rough sense.  Well same way with power levels.  I'm happy to put in an NPC that's powerful enough in some ways to not exactly follow the rules (though likely weaker in other ways).  I'm happy to put in a monster that has abilities that don't follow the same rules players use.  But I'd like it to be something that fits the same spirit that the rules give to the setting, if not the rules themselves.

I find games that are really focused on compressing everything out of the design that doesn't expressly support the main goal tend to work very well within that main goal, but get brittle fast when you stray outside those lines.  And I'm going to stray.

Agreed.

My system is 15 levels for PCs, but NPCs/monsters range from 0-18 and also has level 0-5 "grunts" (about a sixth the strength of a PC of their level... a level 6 grunt would be identical to a normal level 0 monster) and elite (double strength) and champion (quadruple strength) creatures of level 0-18 for added variety.

The PCs are "big damned heroes" in the setting, they are far more able and skilled than your typical town guards (grunts), but there are many monsters their equal (standard 0-18) and some far more powerful than even groups of PC heroes (elites and champions) which is why the setting needs heroes to defend civilization (the setting includes a culture heroes myth involving heroes banding together to overcome the forces of chaos and establish civilization... thus adventuring parties are considered a force for civilization rather than dangerous misanthropes who can't get along among normal people).

exalted has 10 essence levels. even essence 2 in 1e/2e (or 1 in 3e) is superhuman. essence 10 is just overkill.

it does the job well but that's mostly because exalted balances between martials and casters better than any DND edition.

Been getting into White Box recently, and the 1-10 level range feels very right (as it does in White Star). That said, I'm still mostly running 5e, with umpteen different groups ranging from one at 2nd-3rd level to one at 7th-13th level. The typical groups are 7th-8th. This all seems to work pretty well.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 18, 2022, 07:43:44 AM
Makes sense, when that's what you want.  Me, I run into the issue that I want the system to scale somewhat past the lower and upper ends of where I plan to use it.  It doesn't have to be perfect or hold up to the same scrutiny that the main power levels do, but I'm not quite in the camp of just applying complete GM fiat to the setting elements that don't fit adventurers.

That's a good point and I hadn't thought about that.  The only thing is that if there are rules for characters over the top of the pc range the players are going to want to do those too for their characters.  Then you you need slightly higher power BBEGs, and it repeats.  Not sure how to deal with that besides being a mean DM and just saying no.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 18, 2022, 03:46:03 PM

That's a good point and I hadn't thought about that.  The only thing is that if there are rules for characters over the top of the pc range the players are going to want to do those too for their characters.  Then you you need slightly higher power BBEGs, and it repeats.  Not sure how to deal with that besides being a mean DM and just saying no.

Two things that I'm doing that I've copied from other games that seem to work for me:

A. Label them clearly differently.  I've got my level range, 1-N.  That's the expected play.  After avoiding it for months and designing the game not to need it, I surprised myself and put "Level 0" back in.  Because it really did call out something that I didn't intend to use very often as different, while fitting it into the rules.  So yeah, technically a player can do that, and I've even got a short paragraph of guidelines on how it would work.  But it's not developed fully, and would require some GM fiat--and it's going to stay that way.  I'm not going for a DCC funnel thing here.  It's only in there at all because a "Level 0" NPC could join the party, and possibly later become a real character that got levels.

B. Make them work differently. I've got levels "A-E" that are subsets of Level 0.  Players don't even know about them, and if they did know about them, it would make no difference.  Those are all variations on "Level 0" to encompass different things I wanted for monster development.  It's just a label I can attach to different values in the power scheme.  There's no XP advancement associated with them at all.  I started to use levels 0 through -4, but then realized that was misleading in the way you were worried about.  (Arguably, I shouldn't have even made them levels, but it's easier to show the GM how the work if included on the same chart with levels.  So we'll see.)

Likewise, on the upper end, there is advancement possible past max levels.  The characters just don't get levels anymore, but instead get a slower advancement through other mechanics.  The difference in mechanics calls out starkly where the upper end stops.  It's not "feats" because my system has none, but the concept is similar to the "Epic 6" that some groups grafted onto D&D 3E.  I've just built in the option for that as part of the design.  In part because I want to allow for slow advancement past max level, but also because it supports a GM who wants to lower the maximum level in the system.  There's no house rules needed.  Just declare the max level lower than N and after that go into slow advancement mode per the rules.  Theoretically, it would even work with a level cap of 1 or even zero, though that would seem to indicate the GM would be better served with a different rule set.

This is one of those areas that I think fairly conclusively illustrates why streamlined mechanics can be good up to a point, but chasing streamlined for its own sake is not only a waste of effort but can even be counter-productive.

I have no doubts at all that there are other good ways to manage that issue besides the two I've listed.  Those were just useful for me.