Are xp/levels/advancement necessary?

[BeauNiddle]

Of course, I'm not saying that advancement in RPGs is evil or wrong. I'm just saying that there is so much more to the experience that if you lost advancement it might not be "D&D", but it would still be fun. When you're telling stories about games you've been in, how often does how much XP/levels you earned play the staring part?

"My name is Inyo Monteres. You killed my father. Now prepare to kill me because I haven't improved at all throughout my career."

Nah, doesn't work for me.


(and yes I know I can't spell that guys name correctly)

 

[mmadsen]

"My name is Inyo Monteres. You killed my father. Now prepare to kill me because I haven't improved at all throughout my career." Nah, doesn't work for me. (and yes I know I can't spell that guys name correctly)

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

 

[Ourph]

"My name is Inyo Monteres. You killed my father. Now prepare to kill me because I haven't improved at all throughout my career."

Nah, doesn't work for me.

I think it's important to point out that Inigo Montoya doesn't improve at all from the time he enters the story until he faces his final challenge as far as skill with a sword goes. When he enters the story he's already as capable a fighter as he will ever need to be to accomplish his goal. The struggle and challenge of the "adventure" is embodied within the story elements... finding Wesley, breaking into the castle, finding Count Rugen, etc.... not in Inigo's struggle to become a better swordsman.

Any improvement is embodied within his character (learning to care about others, finding some purpose other than revenge, believing in himself) not in his physical abilities.

That kind of stuff is perfectly doable in D&D without XP and levels.

 

[BeauNiddle]

I think it's important to point out that Inigo Montoya doesn't improve at all from the time he enters the story until he faces his final challenge as far as skill with a sword goes. When he enters the story he's already as capable a fighter as he will ever need to be to accomplish his goal. The struggle and challenge of the "adventure" is embodied within the story elements... finding Wesley, breaking into the castle, finding Count Rugen, etc.... not in Inigo's struggle to become a better swordsman.

Any improvement is embodied within his character (learning to care about others, finding some purpose other than revenge, believing in himself) not in his physical abilities.

That kind of stuff is perfectly doable in D&D without XP and levels.

For a 2 hour game then yes. For a multiple month campaign .... then why didn't he kill his nemesis in the first 2 hours?

I agree the idea of a levelless game is doable and would be fine with the right group but personally I'd find the challenge offered to be poor. You can either fight the opponent immediately or you have to spend your time researching to find his weakness. After a while that would become repetative and horribily scripted ('oh look another quest for a rare item in a hidden tomb which exists just for the sole purpose of killing this one creature' since of course the desired item can't kill multiple creatures due to the wealth issues mentioned previously)

Great for a one off or for a break from a normal campaign but I don't see it being an ongoing concern.

Of course thats just my thoughts

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

I don't think it would be realistic without the disparities in skill. In real life a master swordsman is much, much better than a novice.

True enough except for the question of hit points, but let's not start that debate. ;-)

Thanks for all the great ideas, everyone! Especially the list of carrots beyond levels.

I've wondered if maybe levels could be replaced with some sort of "achievement badge" system, where sure your skills and abilities get a little better (at least the ones you used frequently), but you also gain in-game benefits like reputation, knowledge, titles, etc.

Maybe advancement can be partially mitigated by corresponding negatives. Maybe the skills you used most in the last adventure increase, but the 1-2 skills you didn't use at all decrease. This would point up the fact that you must "use it or lose it." ("Skills" could just as well be interpreted as all the stats that make up the character, including spells and stuff.)

It's not quite the same, but in Call of Cthulhu, the most experienced investigators have the least sanity... Thus its not always an advantage to have the most experienced PC.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

After a while that would become repetative and horribily scripted ('oh look another quest for a rare item in a hidden tomb which exists just for the sole purpose of killing this one creature' since of course the desired item can't kill multiple creatures due to the wealth issues mentioned previously)

I don't follow your logic here.

 

[BeauNiddle]

I don't follow your logic here.

There had been a previous discussion about how you can't just keep giving more and more loot to the players or else everything ends up out of whack (the 20th level loot, 5th level saves issue)

This means the McGuffin the party needs has to be in some way tied to the appropriate target. You could make it of a special metal (a silver weapon, an adamantine weapon, a cold-iron weapon, etc.) but there are a limited number of such metals available. This means you either run out of quests (and hence bad guys) or you have to make specific items that only affect named targets. Which ends up being horribly scripted.

The nice thing about levelling up during a game is the fact the bad guys can level as well. You can have a 5th level nemesis, then a 10th level nemesis, then a 15th level, then 20th and finally a 25th (depending on how long the campaign runs) Each BBEG will have new powers and each will require the player to grow their abilities to overcome. Without levelling there are only so many twists you can throw at the player.

I can see it in a political campaign where the strength of the opponent isn't the threat but rather the strength of their SUPPORT is the challenge. But overall this style of play, IMO, enforces a limited number of opponents and thus a limited length to the campaign.

Of course a completely open ended campaign where there is always one more bad guy has it's own problems where as a well defined campaign with a fixed beginning, middle and end can often work better. So you pay your money and take your choice, as it were.

 

[rgard]

In Traveller you don't need to buy fireballs with XP, because you can buy FGMPs with cash.

Two points:

1. FGMP15 is my favorite!
2. T20 uses the D20 mechanic and uses experience charts and levels.

Yes, you can have your cake and eat it!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[rgard]

True enough except for the question of hit points, but let's not start that debate. ;-)

Thanks for all the great ideas, everyone! Especially the list of carrots beyond levels.

I've wondered if maybe levels could be replaced with some sort of "achievement badge" system, where sure your skills and abilities get a little better (at least the ones you used frequently), but you also gain in-game benefits like reputation, knowledge, titles, etc.

Maybe advancement can be partially mitigated by corresponding negatives. Maybe the skills you used most in the last adventure increase, but the 1-2 skills you didn't use at all decrease. This would point up the fact that you must "use it or lose it." ("Skills" could just as well be interpreted as all the stats that make up the character, including spells and stuff.)

It's not quite the same, but in Call of Cthulhu, the most experienced investigators have the least sanity... Thus its not always an advantage to have the most experienced PC.

Again, I don't think we need to mess with the experience point/level advancement for D&D or other D20 games. There are already systems out there like GURPS and White Wolf as somebody (Molonel, I think) mentioned as well. I only have a passing familiarity with White Wolf's stuff, but have played GURPS and that will do the trick for the original poster.

I guess doing the keep track of skills thing is doable, but it would be a pain to keep track of...I don't need the extra work as a player...and imagine being the DM keeping track of what skills the BBEG used during each encounter.

Then again...it's entirely up to individual gaming groups to decide or not to decide whether to play D&D without xps and levels. Whatever floats your boat.

Edit: grammar and content.

 

[Remathilis]

Of course, I'm not saying that advancement in RPGs is evil or wrong. I'm just saying that there is so much more to the experience that if you lost advancement it might not be "D&D", but it would still be fun. When you're telling stories about games you've been in, how often does how much XP/levels you earned play the staring part?

But, look at it THIS way...

Take the Classic Heroic Journey (Star Wars, Eragon, the Hobbit, etc. I'll use SW). Luke is a no-name farm-boy when the droids end up at his door. If you were to make a RPG that follows the "NO advancement" paragrim, Luke would never advance past farm-boy into Jedi Knight without GM hand-waving. Luke DOES improve. he gains "magic", his ability with a lightsaber improves (his two hit), he gains skill improvement, and he becomes harder to kill. That is gaining levels per se in essence of his journey from SW -> ESB -> RotJ. (and remember, he spent mere MONTHS with Yoda learning the force and saber skills before running off to face Vader)

Go to the prequels and Anakin advances from slave to jedi to sith lord. ObiWan advances from student to master. Padme grows up from being a naive queen to a cunning senator. I think that alone should give reason why PCs should advance in some reasonable fashion.

Clearly, its not a perfect solution, but leveling does a dirty job of showing improvement. If you don't like that method, I may suggest a system that handles improvement differently (like StoryTeller or WEG's d6 system).