Things that just bother me when it comes to D&D.

[DEFCON 1]

Also, that point of view seems to assume a linear story to some extent. ...or, well, a preset story. In a game where neither is the case, it is my opinion that it fits less.

It doesn't have to be a linear story to still have the problems of believing there's a direct correlation between Level and actual ability and power within the fiction. After all... there is no timetable on leveling up. It can happen as quickly or as slowly as the DM decides based upon the XP he gives out. Which means you can effectively have PCs gain levels over the course of DAYS, if that's the way the DM is running his game. And thus we're supposed to believe in the fiction (if Level is supposedly a true indication of a PC's ability and power) that they've suddenly gone from being barely able to take on a kobold on Sunday to now going toe-to-toe with an ogre on Saturday? That makes no sense either.

Trying to use Level as any actual indication of power I still think is futile. Levels are a metagame concept meant to give the illusion of characters getting better over time... but which hold barely any reasonable facimile to a realistic portrayal of that process. PCs just get "too much stuff" due to the game mechanics in place so that gaining "levels" is actually interesting for the players.

 

[Argyle King]

It doesn't have to be a linear story to still have the problems of believing there's a direct correlation between Level and actual ability and power within the fiction. After all... there is no timetable on leveling up. It can happen as quickly or as slowly as the DM decides based upon the XP he gives out. Which means you can effectively have PCs gain levels over the course of DAYS, if that's the way the DM is running his game. And thus we're supposed to believe in the fiction (if Level is supposedly a true indication of a PC's ability and power) that they've suddenly gone from being barely able to take on a kobold on Sunday to now going toe-to-toe with an ogre on Saturday? That makes no sense either.

Trying to use Level as any actual indication of power I still think is futile. Levels are a metagame concept meant to give the illusion of characters getting better over time... but which hold barely any reasonable facimile to a realistic portrayal of that process. PCs just get "too much stuff" due to the game mechanics in place so that gaining "levels" is actually interesting for the players.

What I meant was that I find it easier to accept the premise of your previous post in a game where the story is more linear. In a game where it is less linear, it's even more difficult than usual for me to ignore the things which I've previously mentioned bother me.

I agree that levels are a metagame concept. If given the choice, I prefer to play a system without levels.


edit: It's no so much that 'levels' bother me; it's more the manner of how they are portrayed in D&D. All things being equal, I prefer breadth rather than depth... a more horizontal growth of characters than vertical if you will.

 

[Li Shenron]

Which means you can effectively have PCs gain levels over the course of DAYS, if that's the way the DM is running his game. And thus we're supposed to believe in the fiction (if Level is supposedly a true indication of a PC's ability and power) that they've suddenly gone from being barely able to take on a kobold on Sunday to now going toe-to-toe with an ogre on Saturday? That makes no sense either.

Now that you make me think about it, it bothers me too. More specifically, it bothers me that the most common situation is people starting with "young characters" (in their 20s-30s) to represent 1st level and then go up 10 levels in the course of a (long, but still single) adventure.

It does feel sensible to me that a total beginner learns a lot from the first adventure, so going from 1st to e.g. 5th in a couple of adventure is OK for me, maybe even going from 1st to 2nd just after your first serious fight.

But it's the linear progression i.e. getting a new level always after the about same amount of time that gives me some problem... not only because this also is generally fast, so those characters are still 20yo when they reach maximum level, but also because IMHO this has a HUGE effect on how people tend to negatively see the game at high levels as "breaking down", because the game obviously gets more difficult to both play and run properly, and if you level up too fast then neither the players nor the DM have the time to learn.

 

[Li Shenron]

I enjoy Rokugan and use a lot of things from it in my game.

I'd really like to hear more about it, what you've used and how, but I think it would be too much off-topic for this thread

I want to try the taking out the divine arcane magic divide in D20 and see how it plays. I had success making all skill class skills. The doomsayers were wrong the rogue didn't get hosed everybody did not take spot. It opened up customization of the PCs especially for the fighter times.

Yes, I don't see the problem either... maybe if you give a lot more skill points than usual, but making all skills class skills really doesn't have that problem (I still always used cross-class skills in my games for class protection, but I've occasionally added options to get more class skills than usual).

How I handle city guard and nobles and other NPCs is I make them the level I need for the story. I view level as a mechanic to allow PCs new abilities. Like hit points it is really artificial and gamiest so I don't let it tie my hands story wise.

As for a reason why the king sends PCs out to do the dirty work instead of the city guard or army that is really easy. The PCs are expendable usually if they die the king does not owe a death debt to family also why would he risk his city guards they are better trained at keeping order and are known by the people and him. As for the army they are fine for war but when you need a small group who better than a small group of adventurers.

Absolutely, and I am a bit surprised to hear that this is a problem for some gaming groups. A professional guard or soldier is not by default neither experienced nor trained for adventuring. How can a city guard or even an army veteran know how to handle traps, weird monsters, underground hazards and maze navigation?

 

[S'mon]

Re levels - AD&D heavily regulated speed of advancement per RAW due to training times (up to 4 weeks), but ran into the same sort of trouble modern APs have when it was used for campaign modules like Temple of Elemental Evil.

I normally prefer to see levels as indicative of actual power, at least at that moment in time. I don't mind if you indicate in your backstory that your 1st level PC was actually a powerful wizard at some time in the past - just explain why you're only 1st level now.

In my main campaign, PCs have gone from 1st to 10th in a year of game time (2 years real time), I expect them or their successors to go from 10th to 30th in around 30 years of game time, around 4 years of real time. So I'm spreading out high level adventures to get a more naturalistic progression.

This is 4e so 1st-10th equates to around 1st-5th in 3e/PF; 11th-30th equates to around 6th-15th in 3e/PF.

 

[pemerton]

I normally prefer to see levels as indicative of actual power, at least at that moment in time. I don't mind if you indicate in your backstory that your 1st level PC was actually a powerful wizard at some time in the past - just explain why you're only 1st level now.

This was how I ran Rolemaster - including the 1st level ranger/ninja-type who had been an animal spirit in the kingdoms of heaven in the past, but demoted following an embarrassing conflict with the lord of birds!

I really like [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]'s plot-connectedness approach, but 4e puts some limits on it - paragon path and even moreso epic destiny signal a real change in the PC's status and power within the gameworld, I think.

In my main campaign, PCs have gone from 1st to 10th in a year of game time (2 years real time), I expect them or their successors to go from 10th to 30th in around 30 years of game time, around 4 years of real time. So I'm spreading out high level adventures to get a more naturalistic progression.

My games always have ridiculously fast levelling - but because we only play every fortnight or so, it doesn't get experienced in that way - but every now and then one of the players asks how much ingame time has elapsed, and everyone laughs at how many levels they're gaining per month! (I also use mythic history, rather than the passage of ingame time, to reinforce a sense of the importance of time in the gameworld.)

My Rolemaster games were generally similar to this. Burning Wheel has some interesting mechanical features to try to make the passage of time more "naturalistic", and I am hoping to get to run it once my 4e campaign concludes.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by DEFCON 1
Which means you can effectively have PCs gain levels over the course of DAYS, if that's the way the DM is running his game. And thus we're supposed to believe in the fiction (if Level is supposedly a true indication of a PC's ability and power) that they've suddenly gone from being barely able to take on a kobold on Sunday to now going toe-to-toe with an ogre on Saturday? That makes no sense either.

While I do understand this sentiment, I come at it from a bit of a different angle. I don't mind this paradigm so much. I actually find that it maps to the trial by fire evolution of a soldier/martial endeavor well enough.

Consider the men who never saw actual combat (just basic and advanced training) before storming the beaches on D-Day or being parachuted in behind enemy lines to take out a heavily fortified gun/artillery position so the men on the beach could secure a continental base of operations for the Allies to invade occupied France/Europe. Consider even the hardened, seasoned men from the 101st Airborne as they fought back the German artillery and tank onslaught during the Battle of the Bulge...hopelessly outnumbered and lacking in cold-weather gear, ammunition, food, medical supplies, and senior leadership during the German Siege of Bostogne and through the brutal winter months. Those men came out of those micro-conflicts very different people and their capability as soldiers changed dramatically.

My sense of things is rather than a straight-forward, slow, linear advancement, there would be a step-change process underwriting experience:soldiering output. As such, I don't mind big proficiency jumps in "adventuring career output". Its more a function of game-changing moments endured, battles won and lost, than the sheer role of years. Of course, the role of years will be more accrued moments endured, battles won and lost...but the imprint is better measured by the micro rather than the macro.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'd really like to hear more about it, what you've used and how, but I think it would be too much off-topic for this thread



Yes, I don't see the problem either... maybe if you give a lot more skill points than usual, but making all skills class skills really doesn't have that problem (I still always used cross-class skills in my games for class protection, but I've occasionally added options to get more class skills than usual).



Absolutely, and I am a bit surprised to hear that this is a problem for some gaming groups. A professional guard or soldier is not by default neither experienced nor trained for adventuring. How can a city guard or even an army veteran know how to handle traps, weird monsters, underground hazards and maze navigation?

The courtier class in Rokugan is a favorite to use to make a PC with a noble background take two levels and it gives enough goodies to support playing a noble. I combined two level of it with the rest fighter and made this awesome knight royal retired centurion of the Emperor forces. I have used the honor system and my one elven culture is based completely on Rokugan.

That is what balances it in my opinion a fighter still only gets two so he really does not step on the rogue's toes. I understood the idea behind cross class skills but they are imo limiting why can't a fighter be just as good at appraising jewels as a rogue or just as good at diplomacy as a bard. Yes it requires players not to be dicks and step on other players toes but that is how it should be anyway you should not need rules for that. I do believe in some niche protection but I don't think skills was the way to do it.

I have found that some players get pissy over it they are feel the DM is cheating or screwing them over if they don't follow the guidelines of commoners, city guard. Personally I think it is piss poor role playing to metagame levels. Players should not base their decisions on perceived levels. For example mouthing off to the King just because you think that you are higher level than everyone in the room. Treating the city guards like dirt because you think you are a higher level.

I have often found in some games that I play in that after a certain level some players become drunk with power and suddenly their entire way of playing changes. Before they played good characters who treated the king with respect and had respect for the city guard and the merchants. And then they start realizing that hey they are higher level in power and suddenly start behaving in a rather unlawful often times evil way. Now it is different if the player makes this decision based on a role playing reason but often when asked why they are doing it they will trout out the metagame of well there is nothing they can do now to my PC. And a lot of DMs allow this behavior by not putting real consequences in the game world for it.

 

[Argyle King]

Absolutely, and I am a bit surprised to hear that this is a problem for some gaming groups. A professional guard or soldier is not by default neither experienced nor trained for adventuring. How can a city guard or even an army veteran know how to handle traps, weird monsters, underground hazards and maze navigation?

Not all adventures are underground or in mazes. As for the weird monsters? The D&D world presents a lot of them as being pretty common in the world; it seems strange to me that a man-at-arms in that same world would have no idea at all about how to combat one.

I do agree with the basic underlying idea that being trained in being a town guard doesn't have a lot of overlap with dungeon crawling and adventuring. Those would be different skill sets, and I agree with that. However, when you have a guard capable of taking what is very obviously far more damage (by virtue of how HP scales with level) and dishing out what is very obviously far more damage (by virtue of how some powers and feats scale with level,) it seems unusual for a king/mayor/whatever to pay large sums of money (far more than what he pays his guards) to people (PCs) who -even considering their unique dungeon crawling training- aren't anywhere near the proficiency of the NPCs around him.

On the other hand, if going with the idea that NPCs have no stats and are simply killed because they aren't important unless tied to the story, that creates a few issues when considering PCs who may not necessarily be good of heart. It's worth mentioning that I do somewhat agree with the approach of not fleshing out every NPC; faceless town guard #4 doesn't need a character sheet. That being said, I've been in games where the less-than-pure-of-heart PCs had a tendency to impose their will upon the world via force because they learned that the rest of the world was weak in comparison to what they could do. This feeds into the original post about PCs slaying Gods; I recall a lot of encounters with famous D&D villains being something of a let down during the first few 4E campaigns I played to 30 in.

Like I said, I do my best not to think about it. I can usually ignore it if I don't look too hard. It's most jarring to me when the fiction of the game doesn't match up with how the game works mechanically.

 

[Li Shenron]

As for the weird monsters? The D&D world presents a lot of them as being pretty common in the world

...

Like I said, I do my best not to think about it.

Exactly.

Your sentence about monsters being common (together with spellcasters being common, and magic items being common) is a source of such endless list of inconsistencies in every campaign setting homebrew or published (including those who do try to address the problem and claim to provide consistency to such fantasy world), that by comparison the problem about guards becomes so minimal it's not worth worrying about it.

It can be quite fun actually, to try and infer what would be the consequences on everyday life of undead being common, healing potions being common, or wizards being common, and make adjustments to your fantasy world for your own gaming satisfaction. But I certainly wouldn't lose my sleep over trying to defend a consistency which is just impossible to achieve.