Are xp/levels/advancement necessary?

[xnosipjpqmhd]

For some time I have had nagging doubts about what the heck xp and levels represent, and what the effect on the game would be if PCs didn't advance so... obviously. Related to this are a lot of unrealistic and yet all-too common situations in D&D games:

- Campaigns that span a few weeks of game time and result in PCs with levels higher than their age... (Does it strain credulity for someone to leave his village an inept peon and return a month later as the most skilled warrior in the kingdom? So what if he went through the whole Age of Worms adventure path; how much could he actually learn in so short a time that experts who have spent their whole lives could not?)

- Wide disparity in the power level of NPCs with no outward way to judge... (sure, smart PCs can tell low-HD monsters from high-HD ones, but how are they supposed to know whether the old hermit NPC is a crazy 1st level commoner or a 12th level sorcerer?)

- High-level retired adventurers who are barkeeps but are just as sharp and skilled as they were decades ago... (How come their skills don't deteriorate from non-use?)

Is it possible to imagine D&D without advancement? What would happen if your group simply decided on the level at which they wanted to play, and just started playing, without tracking xp?

Is it possible to imagine D&D without levels... or more to the point, without large disparities in skill between anyone and anyone else? Would this still be considered a heroic game or would you classify this as gritty/realistic?

Is it possible to link advancement with age? What would happen if it were impossible for someone to have more class levels than twice their age? I picked that ratio at random, but it could be any formula you like... What effect would this have on running a campaign?

Obviously people can always learn new things, but is there a point at which personal improvement is maxed out until you are simply becoming more specialized in one (or more) professions at the cost of neglecting everything else?

Perhaps more to the point, is it possible to replace the current advancement rules with something that better emulates diminishing returns on finite resources... that is, if a fighter all of a sudden starts spending his time studying magic, wouldn't his fighting skills deteriorate while his magic skills correspondingly improve?

To give a crude example, what if the maximum potential of a person is, say, 20 levels of ability, and barring divine intervention, it's simply not physically possible to possess more raw skill than that. When a multiclassed Fighter 16 / Wizard 4 wants to gain a level in Wizard, it comes at the expense of a Fighter level. (This is a generous example, but what if the cap was 5 levels of ability?)

To a lesser extent, the thoughts above apply to monsters with hit dice as well. Hypothetically speaking, there's nothing in the rules saying a DM couldn't design a normal-looking bunny with 24 HD and a +35 base attack bonus, right? That's an extreme example, but reduce it to 2 HD and it's still arbitrary.

Thoughts and opinions anyone?

 

[Nightfall]

I like cheese pizza with extra cheesy cheese and a side order of cheesy sticks.

 

[Raloc]

Well, for one, realism isn't fun. Otherwise you'd roleplay people sitting on their arse or going to work every day, and no one wants that.

However, if you did want to go the realistic route, I'd look into the way people become experts in real life. This process takes more or less ten years (you can shorten it with study and/or practice, but only to a point, for humans, ten years is about the average to become a true expert (in, say, chess, or programming)) in a given field. The difference between someone five years along such an advancement path, and one who is already at ten plus years isn't really readily obvious either. It's only when querying (or, for say, martial arts, when in *true* combat (not talking about sparring and such)) the latter that you would be able to determine.

Basically, you'd want to make some sort of baseline for "people" (stats), keep it at that, and not advance their stats (HP et al) at all, but only their abilities in their discipline. Make it take roughly eight to ten years to become "expert" at their discipline. You'd also want to make death happen often and in as many ways as it does IRL (i.e., people fall down stairs, drown, etc. fairly often, and the PCs would be subject to such also) as well as making the combat such that an "expert" in combat could get killed as easily as the person with one year or none of combat training.

You'd have a very different game from D&D, that's for sure. PCs would probably die pretty regularly, especially if you were adhering to combat incidents in the pseudo-medieval settings. You could de-emphasize combat though, which would make it all the more exciting when you did end up having one.


---

As a further note about the way that people become experts in fields, I must also point out that you should look at information theory. The difference in aptitude between a true expert of a given field or discipline and someone that isn't *quite* at that level can be explained similarly to the integration of information (data with no context) into knowledge (data about the "how's" of a field/discipline's "system"), and bodies of knowledge into wisdom (data about the "why's" of a field/discipline's "system"). The expert will have wisdom about the discipline/field's workings, while those before expert level will possess only knowledge (adept level) or mere information (novice).

 

[Nightfall]

Cheese! It's good for the soul and roleplaying!

It's what's not for snacking dinner!

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

I imagine that with xp being a non-issue, story-related advancement would be more prominent... If there's less "I want to get to 5th level so I can get the Wicked Strike feat," then maybe there'll be more time for "I want to earn the respect of the Unhallowed Seven of Thuurk, then establish my own manse near the Smoking Pit of Jaghrwar, the better to study and harness its enchanted fumes." Basically more story goals rather than stat goals...

Anyone play the Dying Earth RPG? My (admittedly pitiful) understanding is that it has three broad levels of power (Cugel, Turjan, Rhialto), each with quite a different feel. Cugel-level characters/adventures are similar perhaps to the low level D&D experience, while Turjan-level might correspond with about 8th level maybe, and Rhialto-level would be just shy of epic probably.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

Well, for one, realism isn't fun. *snip* You'd have a very different game from D&D, that's for sure. PCs would probably die pretty regularly, especially if you were adhering to combat incidents in the pseudo-medieval settings.

I'm not so much advocating realism as I am questioning the purpose of advancement. I could just as easily assume everyone in the world defaults to 5th level instead of 1st, since levels are essentially arbitrary.

The expert will have wisdom about the discipline/field's workings, while those before expert level will possess only knowledge (adept level) or mere information (novice).

Excellent point. Might be a tad too complicated to simulate, tho.

 

[Nightfall]

The earth dying taste better when you have it with cheese, Gouda and probably some mozzarella too. Parmesan is nice too.

 

[hong]

I'm not so much advocating realism as I am questioning the purpose of advancement. I could just as easily assume everyone in the world defaults to 5th level instead of 1st, since levels are essentially arbitrary.

D&D has levels for the same reason pinball machines have points.

 

[Geoffrey]

I got rid of levels in my campaign. To make a long story short, every PC is roughly the equivalent of 8th level and they stay there. They adventure in order to gain treasures and beneficial lore.

 

[Nightfall]

D&D has levels for the same reason pinball machines have points.

And the same reason pizza has cheese?