Fixed Level Gaming

[Kristian Serrano]

Woas, I had the same reaction after I switched to Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds still has advancement, but XP is award by the GM per session, usually about 1-3 points per session depending on how successful the party was.

However, Savage Worlds allows one to create characters that are more advanced and to start with a higher amount of XP, and there are no class ability carrots dangled in front of the players deliberately. Even still, after about 3 game sessions you're able to get that next Edge you want (it's like a feat/class ability for those unfamiliar with Savage Worlds).

It's a very liberating feeling that allows you to really enjoy playing the character not just the race & class stat block.

 

[Dragonblade]

I play fixed levels with M&M. I decide on a PL in advance. Usually between 10 and 15 (for a Justice League style game).

After that, I NEVER grant power points again. My players play purely for the story. Though I do give out Hero points which PCs can accumulate over the course of adventures.

I also am very flexible with PCs. If a player decides a certain power, or feat or whatever is not working out for them, I always let them trade it back in for points to use for the feat or power they do want. If the change is radical, I'll write it into my story as an event that explains the alteration and or new powers for that character. Kind of like the Spider-man alien costume saga that eventually led to Venom.

 

[dm4hire]

I haven't read the books for a while now as I don't have a local game going but that's how I remembered it. You could progress it if you wanted, but for the most part the interpretations I got was that you didn't advance. This was to reflect that comic book heroes really have never changed throughout their history that much. I remember reading the recommendation of starting 3 levels beneath the final level you wanted to play if you wanted to advance.

I agree though that a pure static system would probably be best as a mini-campaign or one shots. Though I think longer campaigns would be feasible in the long run.

One of the biggest problems I have seen over the coarse of gaming in level systems is that by the time you really get to know the character it's time to change them. Point buy systems do tend to fix this somewhat but they too can eventually succumb to the same problem; granted it takes a lot longer for it to happen.

I've flipped through Travellers but never actually owned or read through it. Didn't they make a fantasy adaption or version of it once? For some reason I'm wanting to say they did or at least provided basic guidelines for it somewhere as an enhancement.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I haven't read the books for a while now as I don't have a local game going but that's how I remembered it. You could progress it if you wanted, but for the most part the interpretations I got was that you didn't advance. This was to reflect that comic book heroes really have never changed throughout their history that much.

M&M 2e core book, p. 178.

 

[xechnao]

Your responsibilities have to change. If you always have the same responsibilities it will become boring. There are a lot of ways to do this. D&D leveling is an answer given by the game to its players. Furthermore it also controls the responsibilities.

Point buy systems tend to do with less control. I suggest to keep options limited so you do not lose it. Each player should specialize in a limited number of competencies-and he should have something unique than the rest of the players.

As long as you set the limits in respect to the adventure, the adventure itself will guide the development of the responsibilities. For example if you go on to face bigger enemies you will have to employ bigger weapons (these weapons are more cumbersome to employ so your responsibilities seem to change here). Similarly if you go on to explore a bigger area the organization regarding the team roles will have to change too. And players should always be informed about the dangers of keeping or remaining in their old ways.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

Your responsibilities have to change. If you always have the same responsibilities it will become boring. There are a lot of ways to do this. D&D leveling is an answer given by the game to its players. Furthermore it also controls the responsibilities.

I think this is a flawed argument. Responsibilities aren't always the same (or boring for that matter) just because you stay at the same power level. The responsibilities can changes based on the story of the adventure campaign. One minute you could be fighting to defend a nation as the king's favored hero after defending the kingdom from an invasion of hobgoblins, and the next he might ostracize you because someone else framed you and your companions for something you didn't do. The someone else could be making a political play to get close to the king and assassinate him. Your new responsibility shifted from soldier to defender of a king who no longer trusts you.

Pulp stories are full of characters who don't gain power levels but who are constantly encountering new and exciting adventures and threats. Conan never got bored because he never gained new feats or powers. The action and experiences are what kept his stories so enthralling.

The same can be applied to a RPG game that doesn't dangle the level carrot in front of you the entire time.

 

[xechnao]

- you will want new options that you can combine with older ones, or that improves what an older one did

Not necessarily. The fact that you need new things to keep it interesting does not mean that you will have to keep the old stuff too (otherwise you will come to a point where you are carrying excessive buggage and this is a negative thing).

 

[xechnao]

I think this is a flawed argument. Responsibilities aren't always the same (or boring for that matter) just because you stay at the same power level. The responsibilities can changes based on the story of the adventure campaign. One minute you could be fighting to defend a nation as the king's favored hero after defending the kingdom from an invasion of hobgoblins, and the next he might ostracize you because someone else framed you and your companions for something you didn't do. The someone else could be making a political play to get close to the king and assassinate him. Your new responsibility shifted from soldier to defender of a king who no longer trusts you.

Pulp stories are full of characters who don't gain power levels but who are constantly encountering new and exciting adventures and threats. Conan never got bored because he never gained new feats or powers. The action and experiences are what kept his stories so enthralling.

The same can be applied to a RPG game that doesn't dangle the level carrot in front of you the entire time.

What you are saying here does not need power levels at all and is a perfectly valid way to think about developing a game or a campaign. But since the tools of M&M are power levels I tried (did I?-perhaps I did since you seem to have thought so) to introduce what you are saying around M&M's core idea. I believed that by the end of my third paragraph people should have conceived a message similar to what you are talking about.

 

[Korgoth]

I'm perfectly happy with having no advancement. Others have mentioned Classic Traveller: it's the textbook case. You start as an experienced (often retired) adult professional... you're about as good as you're ever going to be (maybe you've already peaked) and now you're independent and bored. A perfect time to become an adventurer! You know, after you've already socked away some money and learned how to take care of yourself, rather than beforehand (as is the usual scheme in the bildungsroman).

The eternal problem of experience points is that whatever method you assign for gaining them is what you are essentially telling the player characters to do. If you get XP for killing monsters, then they will want to open every closet, latrine and chifferobe in the dungeon in order to waste every Tom, Dick and Sleestak who lives there. If you get XP for nabbing treasure (the old classic approach, and my favorite) then the player characters will become venal land pirates who will gleefully risk life and limb for a shot at a treasure cache (you can see why I like this one). If you get XP for completing quests then that's what they'll always try to do, etc.

If, on the other hand, there are no advancements outside of "virtual-tangibles" (money, gear, castles, political faculties, etc.) then the players can basically decide what it is they want to do. This again was the genius of Classic Traveller. Wanna become rich? Pay off your ship? Get a better ship? Carve out a little empire? Become tycoons? The players (assuming you didn't set it up as a "story game") got to pick, and that is very cool.

 

[Ariosto]

I love "classic" Traveller, and although it does provide for characters to improve existing skills or learn new ones (see "Experience," tucked away in Book 2, Starships) that is not typically a big focus in the game.

Neither is it a big focus in most heroic-fantasy fiction of my acquaintance. The "coming of age" story seems to figure in epics inspired by Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, but those don't interest me much. In classic sword-and-sorcery series, we tend to meet the heroes when they are already masterful -- and usually do not see them become very much more capable. Howard's tales of Conan are a bit unusual in relating events from earlier in his career. Dumas' Three Musketeers, surely a seminal influence, were perhaps a bit past their physical peak (in contrast to young D'Artagnan).

Such a game is obviously quite different from D&D, but variety can be the spice of the hobby. One thing it can mean is that there's no need to worry about "level appropriate" challenges and what to do about characters of level x versus those of level y (Can they adventure together?).

Adventure for its own sake, or based on in-character motivations, can more easily take center stage rather than fixation on acquiring ever more "power" in the usual D&D sense.