leveling vs "locationing"

[Umbran]

My premise here is that what matters for enjoyment the most is advancement, period.

I disagree, in that I think you may be conflating "advancement" and "development", and are dismissing one of them thereby.

Advancement is about power - increasing ability to do stuff. A character who advances can pick more complicated locks, fast-talk more smoothly, control greater magical energies, and/or hit harder with a sword.

Development is not about increase, but dynamism and change. A plot or character can develop without things getting "better" in a meaningful sense. Many plot developments are about things getting worse for the character, rather than better.

In terms of GNS theory, advancement is largely about a combination of gamist and simulationist elements. What you're talking about sounds like it deals more with narrative elements. It is my personal observation that a good RPG sits with a balance of these elements - so while you might consider adding in some form of plot development mechanics, you shouldn't neglect advancement in the process.

This is rather borne out by WotC's 1999 market research, in which they found, in general, RPG players like a little bit of everything - they like their advancement, and they like their developing stories. While there will be some who like a game that neglects some of the elements, in catering to that small audience, you'll lose more than you gain.

Of course. This is why I am talking about a more natural or rather intuitive design to the game's gameplay.

Given the number of "huh?" comments you've gotten here, I'm going to suggest that this is not at all intuitive or natural.

Here's the thing (again, using GNS theory as my base) - simulations and games are, to a large extent, algorithmic. Either by culture or by nature, we grasp games and simulations fairly easily. Grasping the essence of narrative, however, is another matter - good narrative is only algorithmic enough to fix it in its genre, but not much beyond that. If narrative is too algorithmic, we dismiss is as "derivative" and "hackneyed". The essence of good narrative lies in part in where it intentionally breaks the rules, rather than follows them.

That's why you see RPGs with narrative mechanics that don't determine narrative flow for you, but instead allow player to take narrative control in various ways. Good narrative is an art, a matter of taste (for which there is no accounting, or accountants), and cannot be dictated by a rulebook, but must be managed in situ.

 

[Tale]

It seems he is wanting to simply discount character advancement/development for story advancement/development. Simply changing locale to represent change-over-time is insufficient. Players often have a need for their characters to grow, as well. This most commonly takes the form of power increases for good reason, to simulate the growth of ability due to experience and trial.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

This is what Xechnao is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, X):

Instead of starting as say, a level 1 PC in Hommlet, who then ventures to the Temple of Evil, you'd start as a PC in Hommlet who then ventures to the temple of Evil. You might have a class, such as wizard, cleric or fighter -- especially if it's a combat-intensive game -- but you wouldn't have a level. Also, your particular combat maneuvers/feats/skills might be determined by your origin/race: dwarf, southern human, etc.

Instead of gaining levels as you explore the Temple, you learn new tricks. For example maybe after fighting a bunch of earth elementals, you gain a bonus to remain standing on unsure terrain (such as when the elementals stomp the ground in an effort to knock you over). Maybe you learn how to overbalance and knock over those elementals, making them child's play to defeat.

Instead of having each basement be tougher than the last, each one is simply different and challenging in a new way. For example after the elementals you encounter a group of flying ghouls, which you then have discover the weakness of.

And finally instead of pointing to the world map once you've done everything to do in the Temple and saying "I'm going there," you look at the world map to see what's not covered by the fog of war and say "I want to go there." The GM doesn't say "You can't go there," but s/he would say "most who pass through the Fey Forest need a druid guide, so you might want to travel to Druid's Grove first and find a gift for them on the way." (This is how many GMs run their games; I think Xchnao means to formalize this practice a bit.)

 

[Umbran]

Instead of gaining levels as you explore the Temple, you learn new tricks.

That is still advancement in power. When you have more choices of tricks, you are more likely to have some thing particularly effective you can do in a given situation. Ergo, you are more powerful.

Honestly, it's roughly equivalent to a point-buy advancement mechanic, rather than a leveled one - you just buy bits and pieces of power as you go, instead of getting them in packages. There's plenty of point-buy games out there.

 

[Mikaze]

Instead of gaining levels as you explore the Temple, you learn new tricks. For example maybe after fighting a bunch of earth elementals, you gain a bonus to remain standing on unsure terrain (such as when the elementals stomp the ground in an effort to knock you over). Maybe you learn how to overbalance and knock over those elementals, making them child's play to defeat.

A good analogy for videogamers might be to look at it as being more Metroid than CastleVania: Symphony Of The Night. No leveling, just acquisition of skills and gear.

 

[Umbran]

So, levels seem to be the standard method of lasting gameplay in traditional rpg design. Critters of dungeon level 3 are more powerful than critters of dungeon level 2 and so on -and thus adventures and their plots are modeled.

I'm going back to this point, rereading it, and I'm questioning it.

Megadungeons typically run on the "deeper is tougher" category, yes. And modern adventure paths do assume that the PCs have done parts 1 and 2 before they enter part 3, and have risen in power to match. But that's not the same as "you can't go to part 3 until you go up in power" - the power rise is correlated to movement in plot, but does not the cause of the movement.

The classic module or single adventure is not designed with an expectation of power gain - you are not typically expected to rise in level in order to move through the adventure. The next module or adventure likely hasn't been chosen (or designed, for homebrewers) yet - you don't have to rise in power to get to the next adventure either.

So, I'm not sure the basic premise given here is all that solid.

 

[xechnao]

That is still advancement in power. When you have more choices of tricks, you are more likely to have some thing particularly effective you can do in a given situation. Ergo, you are more powerful.

Honestly, it's roughly equivalent to a point-buy advancement mechanic, rather than a leveled one - you just buy bits and pieces of power as you go, instead of getting them in packages. There's plenty of point-buy games out there.

Not exactly. Knowing a local language versus knowing two other different local languages does not function necessarily the way you describe here. These skills are mostly relevant to the dynamics and relations of the locations and your place in this, which is not something that can be classified just with the relations of the progressive leveling values (>,< or =).

 

[Umbran]

These skills are mostly relevant to the dynamics and relations of the locations and your place in this, which is not something that can be classified just with the relations of the progressive leveling values (>,< or =).

I speak in broad generalization, of course. The effects of all power are situational. A leveled character who has skills and powers that aren't very applicable to the current situation can look less powerful than a lower-leveled one who happens to have the right skill at the right time. For example, you can have a fire-themed spellcaster who is very powerful in general - but that doesn't do him much good against a critter that's immune to fire.

 

[1Mac]

I'm enjoying this thread, even though I feel like we are talking to an oracle.

Piggybacking off of Tequila Sunrise's observation, the sort of stuff we are talking about might be tricks, the sort of conventional "advancement" Umbran is focused on. But it could also be plot hooks, macguffins, and other storytelling devices. So one example could be fighting in a cold environment and learning cold spells, a "trick" or power. Another example would be, say, earning an audience with a top noble only by suitably impressing his underlings, which is not often conceived as a power at all. Neither are a hard barricade, as might occur in a video RPG. You can still break into the noble's quarters to try talking to him, just as you can try fighting the fire monster with fire magic. You will find that those are suboptimal tactics, so there is a soft barricade.

You may also find that your background gives you some of these devices, or encourages a particular route toward their acquisition. A wilder might look for cold spells in cold places, while a scholarly mage will delve lost libraries instead. A courtier will impress the noble's entourage with wit and diplomacy, while a more swashbuckling adventurer will persuade with flashy deeds.

Gaining powers is often the core of character advancement in RPGs on the one hand, while adventure design often includes the opportunities for plot hooks and story devices on the other hand. I think the idea here is to unify these two mechanics as a means of advancement that is more tied to the narrative than conventional point-buy or leveling.

 

[korjik]

leveling vs locationing

So, levels seem to be the standard method of lasting gameplay in traditional rpg design. Critters of dungeon level 3 are more powerful than critters of dungeon level 2 and so on -and thus adventures and their plots are modeled. And as you know, in game design terms, you need the experience points of dungeon level 2 to proceed to dungeon level 3.

Since we are dealing with rpgs, why not try to base game design on "locationing" instead. By "locationing" I mean to introduce more natural ways to close and open locations in the sense of a direct connection to plot development and PC choices. Those that have played classic rpg video games, such as Baldur's gate, can see how these games were based on something like this.

So why not try to develop this aspect of game design. "Locationing" in place of leveling?

Some of us have been doing this for 20+ years.