Character Equality

[diaglo]

what are levels?

levels aren't just power ups. they are epiphanies.

the experience you need to level is more than just points and time put in.

otherwise all commoners in their late 50's would be lvl 20.

they are learning... that means. you have learned something new. adapted it and understood it. and now benefit from it.

you learn more from losing than winning they say. but that isn't the way D&D plays. you learn by surviving in D&D. so when you gain more levels. it means it is harder to teach the old dog new tricks.. ergo it requires more experience before you grasp enough to make it into something you can use.

it means seeing someone juggle 3 balls doesn't mean you can. but given time, exposure, and practice... aka experience... you will learn. now.. to juggle 4 balls.. you will need to adapt your technique and learn a way to do it. then 5.. then 6.. eventually, you will tap out. your mind and body can't do any more.... so you get the 60 year old 2nd lvl Commoner. he just never learned a new way. and even showing or telling him... ain't gonna make him do it.

 

[The_Universe]

Disagree. Its linear enough. Not everythign is created equalk and the system does it well enough for me. Instead of the game being more bal;anced, the game should teach the DM and players what balance is. This would allow them to be able to create their own things and use their own creativity.

This is an interesting point, but there's a very real economic reason why this specific thing does not (and from a business perspective, should not) ever happen.

It's like the old saying: Give a man a fish and he's full for a day. Teach a man to fish and he's full for the rest of his life. The RPG industry really, really wants you to come back again and again for more fish. If you're out catching your own, they're never going to see you again.

Now, obviously - at some point the rules have to be reasonably transparent to allow DMs to make rulings based on things not found entirely in the rules...but there's also a degree of conscious obfuscation required to ensure that you'll want to buy the next book.

 

[FireLance]

This is an interesting point, but there's a very real economic reason why this specific thing does not (and from a business perspective, should not) ever happen.

It's like the old saying: Give a man a fish and he's full for a day. Teach a man to fish and he's full for the rest of his life. The RPG industry really, really wants you to come back again and again for more fish. If you're out catching your own, they're never going to see you again.

Now, obviously - at some point the rules have to be reasonably transparent to allow DMs to make rulings based on things not found entirely in the rules...but there's also a degree of conscious obfuscation required to ensure that you'll want to buy the next book.

This may be true in many cases, but I don't think this applies to creative industries, including the RPG industry (IMO).

If you can act or direct, does this mean you will never watch another movie or play again? If you can write a novel, does this mean you will never buy another book again? If you can play or sing yourself, does this mean you will never listen to someone else's music again?

Technical competence and rules mastery are only one part of RPGs. And even then, the rules do change, for the better (IMO). Consider the many "innovations" brought about by 3e: the idea that "a level is a level", streamlining saving throws, unifying many game mechanics, etc. Consider also some of the recent developments such as the Scout's skirmish mechanic and the Warlock class. I suppose a few of us could have thought of them ourselves, but most of us wouldn't, and would be happy to buy the books.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Linear play tends towards "grim'n gritty" games where the hero is beating a half-dozen men by the skin of his teeth. (Level 12 adventurer vs. 6 2nd level guards). Runequest, Warhammer, and CP2020 are all games where advancement is rarely dramatic.

Trouble is these are all high fatality games. I can't count the number of times RQ characters were slaughtered by relatively weak foes b/c they were hurt badly in the opening salvo. CP characters rarely lasted more than a half dozen runs before being a drinking story.

I like D&D as the "laugh in the face of danger, beating unbeatable odds" game.

And for the record, 3e at least is not linear nor did it claim to be. It's pretty clearly an exponential curve, given that CR+2=2CR. And there's not really any chance you could use a linear system without a total revamp of the magic system. You'd almost need to cut caster levels in half and extend the distance between new spell levels to at least 4 class levels (i.e. the ranger/paladin progression).

 

[Crothian]

This is an interesting point, but there's a very real economic reason why this specific thing does not (and from a business perspective, should not) ever happen.

There ar egames out there that do this. They are small games, and not big sellers but they are also high quality games and they get my money.

 

[diaglo]

There ar egames out there that do this. They are small games, and not big sellers but they are also high quality games and they get my money.

OD&D(1974) and Chainmail.


that's why my hat of d02 knows no limits.

d02 creates a bunch of lazy hand and halfers who don't want to be creative on their own and their groups behalf.

 

[Romnipotent]

its fine as it is. But I clicked other because I like GURPS quite a bit now, and theres elements in it that I feel can work well