Level 1 Gameplay or Progress through Mastery

[GMMichael]

Here's a video of Actraiser 2, a fantasy game for Super Nintendo in which the PC gains no levels. I won't call it an RPG because the player makes no decisions beyond "destroy or not destroy." Progress isn't determined by a growing number of hit points or other endlessly increasing character attributes. Instead, the player makes progress by developing his own skill. I'm wondering: can a discussion RPG do the same thing?

Obviously, different players have different skills, and players want to play characters who have skills other than their own. So you can't really ask players to perform real-world tasks and tie the results to what their characters do or how well the other players perform. What would an RPG look like that allows a PC to grow in "skill," without granting her more hit points, bigger and badder magic spells, heavier and pointier armor, or a set of swords that eventually reach bus-size?

This reminds me of an ENWorld discussion that referred to Old School gaming, and how it requires skill from the players in addition to skill from the characters. A skilled role-player knows how to describe approaching a trap, knows what gear to pack before a quest, and knows when to run away from a fight. However, Old School gaming usually refers to old editions of D&D, which provided 20 levels of progress that made a character inherently more durable - which Actraiser 2 does not.

Savage Worlds simulates increasing PC skill by assigning the use of higher-rolling dice as the character progresses. Although the changing of dice is less numerical than granting PCs an increasing bonus to die rolls over time, these dice are still tied to higher numbers. And SW also allows a character to grow by gaining experience points, rather than maintaining focus on a starting set of skills.

How do you feel about fixed-Level 1 gameplay? Would you enjoy a game that requires more skill than luck (with die rolls) for progress? Does a game offer more intensity and/or reward when the player accomplishes things without having an ever-growing mattress of hit points underneath to cushion his falls?

 

[payn]

I run lots of Traveller, which has a slow skill point progression raise. Though, its pretty darn close to what I guess I would describe as fixed level 1 gameplay. I love it. I find the players stop worrying about getting gear to hit/save better, what they have to do to get more XP (typically murder hordes of things), and focus more on the adventure and doing things in character that seem interesting to them.

 

[Yora]

Are we talking about player skill or character skills, or both? Those seem like very different topics to me.

 

[Reynard]

Measuring progression by increasing player skill suggests increasing difficulty. How is the difficulty increase measured? Are we using high "level" enemies or just relying on "GM skill" for that?

I think it could be done in a carefully crafted scenario, where information is the primary weapon in the players' hands -- whether it is faction relationships, or damage type vulnerabilities.

 

[payn]

Actraiser 2 was a pretty disappointing follow up to the first.

 

[Umbran]

How do you feel about fixed-Level 1 gameplay?

Depends what kind of game you are running.

One thing to note is that a computer game will generally be consistent with how it runs. GMs won't be. And you noted that the videogame wasn't really a RPG - it had a much smaller rage of player decision making. So, for a computer game, you have focus on a small set of skills against a consistent opponent. In an RPG, you lack those things.

Mind you, there are RPGs I love that have no, or little, character advancement. Sentinels Comics RPG has no character "advancement" at all. Most Fate variants aren't big on outright advancement of character power either.

But then, neither of these rulesets is big on tactical wargaming, either. Neither allows the dice to kill a character - death is a choice a player or GM has to make separate from losing a fight. These are games much less focused on the "win/lose" dichotomy than on the question of what happens.

 

[Reynard]

Another thing to note is that "player skill" video games are big on failure and repetition, which would be tough to do in a TTRPG.

 

[niklinna]

Spirit of the Century, the original Fate game, didn't really do character advancement. When you got bored with your skill pyramid, you'd shuffle it around and just be good at different things (not more). I think there was an option to add on, though.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If you are asking about would I play a game where player skill determines success the answer is yeas and no.

Yes, I would play a boardgame that I improved at every time I played it (Gloomhaven is an example).

No, I would not play a TTRPG that required player skill to do better. Player skill when applied to characters that wouldn't have that same skill is jarring for a realistic narrative.

Why does Farmer Joe's fourth son who just yesterday grabbed a pitchforkk and headed out to kill his first goblin know he needs to bring fire to kill trolls, a 10bfoot pole to search for pressure plate traps, and SWAT style room clearing tactics he can execute with perfection with the three random strangers he just met?

 

[GMMichael]

Are we talking about player skill or character skills, or both? Those seem like very different topics to me.

Welp, a little of both. Actraiser 2 requires the player to become better at using the system, since there is no character advancement. Can players get better at a DRPG? Sure, why not?

On the flip side, a player shouldn't have to, for example, shoot marbles to accomplish something in-game. I've never shot marbles; I don't want my character's archery success to be tied to my shooting skills.

So we have the question: if the character doesn't advance, what/how much can be expected of the player to represent PC progress?

Measuring progression by increasing player skill suggests increasing difficulty. How is the difficulty increase measured? Are we using high "level" enemies or just relying on "GM skill" for that?

I think it could be done in a carefully crafted scenario, where information is the primary weapon in the players' hands -- whether it is faction relationships, or damage type vulnerabilities.

Increasing difficulty could be fighting more lethal opponents. Think: schoolyard bully or demonic knight? It could be about locomotion: is the PC walking down a sidewalk or springing across planks in a rickety rope-bridge suspended over lava? These are the difficulty scales that you get in Actraiser 2; some opponents move toward you slowly and die if you stab them twice. Some have arenas that are surrounded by deadly spikes and the opponent is a demon that flies on a sentient cloud of misery that can blow you into said spikes.

PC knowledge is one way to go. Numenera touches on this: when something works in your favor, you get to knock the difficulty down by a notch when you make your roll. So if you learn beforehand that the cloud of misery will try to blow you away at a certain point in combat, you, as a player, can decide that your character grabs onto something fixed at the right time, which could increase your odds of making the corresponding die roll without your character sheet having a growing list of bonuses for the same purpose.