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.

 

[clearstream]

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?

There are a few ways progress can occur

• Increase in absolute likelihood of overcoming game obstacles (e.g. bigger numbers)
• Decrease in absolute likelihood of losing (e.g. more HP)
• Increase in number of ways to interact with the game world (e.g. new abilities that may be more complex)
• Change in the set of obstacles that can be successfully interacted with (e.g. "higher level" obstacles that have bigger numbers, and may be more complex)
• Change in regions of the game world that can be accessed (e.g. ability to fly or plane-shift, giving access to new obstacles, that may be more complex)

Progress on the first two alone is the antithesis of mastery. Obstacles become easier to overcome, requiring less player skill. Progress on the second increases the game's demand for mastery. Interaction starts simple and become more difficult with progression.

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?

Can only be answered by knowing the details. Is that growth permitting access to a new set of obstacles, that too have bigger numbers? What is happening to breadth and complexity of options for interaction? Greater mastery may be demanded because of character progression.

 

[GMMichael]

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?

Fair question. I think the following quote provides some answers. Also, at least with the Actraiser 2 example, the character in question is a little more intimidating than Joe V. In the CRPG, you play the avatar of a god.

There are a few ways progress can occur
. . .

• Increase in number of ways to interact with the game world (e.g. new abilities that may be more complex)
• Change in the set of obstacles that can be successfully interacted with (e.g. "higher level" obstacles that have bigger numbers, and may be more complex)
• Change in regions of the game world that can be accessed (e.g. ability to fly or plane-shift, giving access to new obstacles, that may be more complex)

New abilities...interesting... this makes me think of CRPG characters adding moves to their action menus. It might even work in D&D 5, since classes tend to have special moves, which suggests that they could have more special moves.

Different classes of obstacles...like, "congratulations! You can now unlock class 2 doors!" Or finding the Jail Key allows you to unlock all jail doors?

This last is very Metroidvania: unlocking access to areas. It doesn't quite make the character cooler, but the player might get a sense of progress by treading new, formerly forbidden, ground.

 

[aia_2]

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.

Could you pls link this topic? I am very interested in reading it!

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?

Yes yes and yes!
Nevertheless any rpg does need dice to make the game random... In a nutshell: yes for a game which leverage not on safety belts such as huge amount of hit points and THACO ridicolous, no for a game where dice randomness is completely excluded.

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?

I would think so and i would like to demonstate it! I have built my game based on this assuptions! The caveat is that this kind of approach doesn't work for anyone!

 

[aramis erak]

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.

While I love Traveller, the experience rules are part of what drove me to trying so many others...
(My progress, in order: AD&D1, BX, Star Frontiers, Classic Traveller, SpaceMaster, those all being before Summer 1984... then MANY others.)

 

[clearstream]

New abilities...interesting... this makes me think of CRPG characters adding moves to their action menus. It might even work in D&D 5, since classes tend to have special moves, which suggests that they could have more special moves.

D&D 5 classes each have a schedule of special moves gained with progression, e.g. Cunning Action gained by Rogue at level 2.

Different classes of obstacles...like, "congratulations! You can now unlock class 2 doors!" Or finding the Jail Key allows you to unlock all jail doors?

More of the "you were up against simple rats with a single bite attack, now deal with a beholder" or "you were exploring a few caves, now cast plane shift and access the outer planes."

This last is very Metroidvania: unlocking access to areas. It doesn't quite make the character cooler, but the player might get a sense of progress by treading new, formerly forbidden, ground.

The characters progress allows them to tread new, more difficult ground.

Consider your videogame analogy. Many videogames get harder, not easier, as you progress. They do that even if also giving you more powerful and complex gear. The design of many RPGs works the same way. Character power increase trivialises erstwhile obstacles... but the group can then be faced with new, harder challenges.

 

[aramis erak]

The characters progress allows them to tread new, more difficult ground.

Consider your videogame analogy. Many videogames get harder, not easier, as you progress. They do that even if also giving you more powerful and complex gear. The design of many RPGs works the same way. Character power increase trivialises erstwhile obstacles... but the group can then be faced with new, harder challenges.

Most of the CRPGs I've played increase both the player's character's capability and the peak adversarial characters capability, but generally leave available lower level opponents in some areas.

Tabletop games generally seem to do likewise.

It's the action games where it tends to be a constant climb... Zelda, Mario...
But some of the action games do the "peaks get better"... Cat Quest 1 & 2...

 

[clearstream]

Most of the CRPGs I've played increase both the player's character's capability and the peak adversarial characters capability, but generally leave available lower level opponents in some areas.

Tabletop games generally seem to do likewise.

It's the action games where it tends to be a constant climb... Zelda, Mario...
But some of the action games do the "peaks get better"... Cat Quest 1 & 2...

Yes, that's very true! The classic difficulty "curve" engineered into videogames looks like a series of sloped-steps (take a staircase and tilt it so that the steps are all sloped.) With that curve, difficulty gradually ramps to peaks and then falls again, and then ramps to a new higher peak. For me Candy Crush exemplifies this design (and corrupts it, sadly.) As you say, in CRPGs it's not so straightforward as access to earlier map regions is usually preserved, even while regions with more challenging obstacles are unlocked. That allows players to feel the satisfaction of easily overcoming obstacles that they had found hard earlier on.

I suppose my general point relative to the OP is that progression doesn't necessarily equate with reduced difficulty. And it is also not quite right to focus only on numerical progression.

• Initial difficulty is mostly associated with game system familiarity, and resolved by practice effect
• Numerical progression on player side is readily matched by same on environment side
• Player mastery of game system also progresses, and that can be matched by more demanding tasks on environment side
• The game system can expand, demanding a new periods of learning
• Difficulty curves in videogames are engineered, while in TTRPGs they are up to each group (although the game's principles and techniques can certainly help or hinder them!)

Each player experiences difficulty according to their own level of mastery, and we can describe a difficulty only in terms of norms. For example, we can call an obstacle that 50% of players overcome on first attempt our Standard difficulty, and say that an obstacle 90% of players overcome on first attempt is Easy, while an obstacle only 10% of players overcome on first attempt is Hard. But for any of those players, when they play on and perhaps eventually return to that "Hard" obstacle, their gains in mastery due to practice effect will significantly increase their likelihood of overcoming it even if they have been given no numerical progression. What was Hard then becomes Easy, and this is satisfying to players. The OP describes this practice effect as "skill" (knowing what to check for at a dungeon door.)

Progression is stimulating because it means that we can experience and enjoy our mastery (skill) while being faced with new kinds of obstacle that can indeed be just as hard or even harder than earlier obstacles even if we were given some numerical progression. The alternate design is flat, and normally engaging in the short or medium, but not long term. One can reflect on PvP games (e.g. Chess) in this same light... our "obstacles" change with our opponents.

 

[uzirath]

There are plenty of genres that don’t assume that characters advance in terms of powers, skill levels, etc. over time. Superheroes, for example, don’t typically “level up” between issues. In RPGs, I’ve seen this in play. In GURPS, for example, earning character points after an adventure is ultimately optional and not recommended for all genres. In games like these, any increase in challenge is based on story elements. Once you get the hang of being Superman, the GM might introduce kryptonite or put you in a situation where you must choose between protecting Lois or saving the city/nation/world. (The challenge there might be figuring out how to do both.). I don’t think I’ve seen this reflected in game mechanics, but I’m intrigued by the idea.

 

[aia_2]

There are plenty of genres that don’t assume that characters advance in terms of powers, skill levels, etc. over time. Superheroes, for example, don’t typically “level up” between issues. In RPGs, I’ve seen this in play. In GURPS, for example, earning character points after an adventure is ultimately optional and not recommended for all genres. In games like these, any increase in challenge is based on story elements. Once you get the hang of being Superman, the GM might introduce kryptonite or put you in a situation where you must choose between protecting Lois or saving the city/nation/world. (The challenge there might be figuring out how to do both.). I don’t think I’ve seen this reflected in game mechanics, but I’m intrigued by the idea.

True, but for those games where the PC are supposed to "grow", then there is a problem i raised here:

RPG theory: in-game balancing

(disclaimer: it will likely have already been discussed but i do not find this topic...) As a game designer, i don't completely understand the need in many games to preserve balance in encounters: why a 1st level party should never meet a dragon? This would result lethal for most of the...

www.enworld.org

...and from the replies of this topic, the problem of making out a constant match between PC and NPC/monsters it seems not perceived, or better the problem is when the match is missing...

 

[clearstream]

True, but for those games where the PC are supposed to "grow", then there is a problem i raised here:

RPG theory: in-game balancing

(disclaimer: it will likely have already been discussed but i do not find this topic...) As a game designer, i don't completely understand the need in many games to preserve balance in encounters: why a 1st level party should never meet a dragon? This would result lethal for most of the...

www.enworld.org

...and from the replies of this topic, the problem of making out a constant match between PC and NPC/monsters it seems not perceived, or better the problem is when the match is missing...

Asymmetrical balancing is the way forward but seriously, one of the most useful constructs for "balance" in games is that it's whatever ensures the greatest number of viable strategies (ways to play.) So good balance means there are many viable approaches to any obstacle, and bad balance means there is only one. Balance therefore is balance between strategies.

A separate construct is "difficulty", which I think can be summarised as likelihood of overcoming an obstacle on a given attempt. High difficulty means low likelihood.

Balance and difficulty are separate constructs. A game can be balanced and easy, or unbalanced and easy, etc. Balance and difficulty can evolve over time, and that is what we call "progression". The OP essentially asks whether balance and difficulty are best at level 1 (and therefore should perhaps stay that way without variation), or possibly improves or disimproves with progression?

Progression allows us to design a game to be pick-up-and-play: not all strategies need to be available at level 1 (so the early game system is easier to understand), and level 1 difficulty can respect the learning curve. Then, with increased mastery, strategies can be broadened creating new things to try and learn.