Why must numbers go up?

[ggroy]

Hey, I wonder if Call of Cthulhu could come into this category? Often played as one-shots, in a campaign it is almost always a case of how slowly does your character deteriorate rather than advance!

I've played CoC a few times in campaigns which lasted more than a month of sessions played every week. It certainly wasn't my cup of tea, for the most part. Most of the other players and I got bored after awhile. It's not my first choice of a game, other than maybe as a one-shot.

At that point, I think it would be fair to say, "This is not Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!" Screw calling it "just bad D&D". That simplistically gives a few game mechanics supreme importance, when elements at least as fundamental -- addressed at length in the Dungeon Masters Guide -- have been cast aside.

For the most part.

This particular DM was very anti-"monty haul" and very anti-munchkin/powergamer to the extreme. It doesn't surprise me at all that just about everybody who has ever played his games ended up revolting and dropping him as DM, from being really bored and frustrated. Today I don't even bother returning his phone calls anymore. He only ever phones me when he's looking for players for his games.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I know I'm probably not explaining this well enough though. But I have it totally pictured in my mind

What you are describing is status quo, as opposed to tailored, encounters as per the terminology in the 3.5 DMG pg 48.

A status quo encounter forces the PCs to adapt to the encounter rather than the other way around. Bugbears live on Clover Hill, and if the PCs go there, they encounter bugbears, whether bugbears are an appropriate encounter for them or not.

 

[Enclave]

What you are describing is status quo, as opposed to tailored, encounters as per the terminology in the 3.5 DMG pg 48.

Ah, yes! That's very much it (I never played 3.x, I went from 2nd Ed to 4th Ed)

See, I just never found a tailored game to really feel all that real. Always made me feel when I was a player "why are the enemies always coincidentally just around my level no matter what I'm taking on, be it Goblins or some great and powerful evil entity from the Underdark"

 

[Umbran]

Very broad and generally...

If the numbers don't change, the tactical game doesn't change very much. Would you want to play a tactical wargame over and over with the same units? For a while, sure, but it'd eventually get boring. You increase the lifespan, the "replayability" if you have some sort of change inherent in the system.

Numbers going up, psychologically, speaks to us as a positive thing, signifying growth and improvement.

Thus, you build a game where there's change, you make it so that change is basically increasing numbers.

 

[Umbran]

See, I just never found a tailored game to really feel all that real. Always made me feel when I was a player "why are the enemies always coincidentally just around my level no matter what I'm taking on, be it Goblins or some great and powerful evil entity from the Underdark"

The usual answer to that (in my experience) seems to be, "They are around your power level because you are seeking out more powerful foes, but not overshooting into things you cannot handle."

If your players aren't taking the initiative and seeking things out, then the justification becomes a bit harder to come by.

 

[Enclave]

The usual answer to that (in my experience) seems to be, "They are around your power level because you are seeking out more powerful foes, but not overshooting into things you cannot handle."

If your players aren't taking the initiative and seeking things out, then the justification becomes a bit harder to come by.

What about if they break out of a dungeon at some point and then at a later point decide they need to break into the same dungeon again for whatever reason, say 10 levels later. Why is it suddenly all the guards and such in the dungeon are suddenly 10 levels higher?

Making it tailored just leaves a sour taste in my mouth due to reasons like this. Now yes, there's always going to be some encounters that will be tailored to the party (such as encounters out in the wild), but if you're talking about going into a city or something else that's far more static of an environment, it's difficult to justify making things tailored and in fact lends the players to feeling like they haven't accomplished anything in getting stronger.

 

[Fifth Element]

What about if they break out of a dungeon at some point and then at a later point decide they need to break into the same dungeon again for whatever reason, say 10 levels later. Why is it suddenly all the guards and such in the dungeon are suddenly 10 levels higher?

Making it tailored just leaves a sour taste in my mouth due to reasons like this.

I don't see anything in Umbran's post that suggests all encounters should be tailored in this way. When I DM, I tailor a good portion of the encounters, with the primary goal of avoiding TPKs, rather than making sure everything is the same level. Some easy encounters can be fun, even a complete walkover, and tough encounter are fun, but "oops, you're all dead" encounters are generally counterproductive.

 

[Enclave]

I don't see anything in Umbran's post that suggests all encounters should be tailored in this way. When I DM, I tailor a good portion of the encounters, with the primary goal of avoiding TPKs, rather than making sure everything is the same level. Some easy encounters can be fun, even a complete walkover, and tough encounter are fun, but "oops, you're all dead" encounters are generally counterproductive.

See, for the things that would end up being a TPK you make it VERY clear that it'd be a BAD idea to do what the party is thinking of doing. It's not hard for a DM to heavily suggest the party not try to assassinate some king in his own throne room or to attack that ancient Dragon before they actually are ready for such a challenge.

 

[Chrono22]

Very broad and generally...

If the numbers don't change, the tactical game doesn't change very much. Would you want to play a tactical wargame over and over with the same units? For a while, sure, but it'd eventually get boring. You increase the lifespan, the "replayability" if you have some sort of change inherent in the system.

Numbers going up, psychologically, speaks to us as a positive thing, signifying growth and improvement.

Thus, you build a game where there's change, you make it so that change is basically increasing numbers.

Um, I debate that. Having the same numbers doesn't make every iteration of a conflict the same. Changing the atmosphere, conditions of success/failure (goals), and the consequences (risks/rewards) are what make a game have replayability.
I'm not fooled by the numbers. Stealing a pie from a group of orcs isn't any less heroic than stealing a +1 flaming pie of deliciousness from a group of demonic githyanki- if the numbers are proportionately the same.
Growth and improvement isn't isolated to numerical advantage. If that's all you think it is, you are missing out on a very fun part of the role playing game experience.

 

[Tuft]

Very broad and generally...

If the numbers don't change, the tactical game doesn't change very much. Would you want to play a tactical wargame over and over with the same units? For a while, sure, but it'd eventually get boring. You increase the lifespan, the "replayability" if you have some sort of change inherent in the system.

Numbers going up, psychologically, speaks to us as a positive thing, signifying growth and improvement.

Thus, you build a game where there's change, you make it so that change is basically increasing numbers.

Change only exists if your options grow; if you can do new things and different things.

If you keep doing the same thing, using the same options and tactics, but just with different numbers, well, then the change amounts to something like playing croquet with the green mallet instead of the blue one...