leveling vs "locationing"

[Umbran]

I think we are losing track with the point buy vs leveling focus.

No, I'm not losing track. I'm putting that focus there to make something clear: You don't want to reinvent the wheel, you do want to learn from history.

The point is that balancing a game based on small individual bits is difficult. The point-buy people have been at it for decades, and the systems are still prone to abuse.

At this point, it is hard to find a game design reason for leveling to exist.

I've already stated a game design reason - it helps regulate the power of characters. Levels take away the work of trying to balance a large number of small bits, by aggregating them in predictable ways. If you have a party of characters all of level 5, you have a significant amount of information about what they can handle. It helps players create characters that are not too ineffectual, or too potent in particular areas, rounded for the gamut of things you are apt to see in a campaign.

Character powers rise linearly, but the game assumes that the characters face linearly more powerful obstacles or problems.

(I think you're abusing the word "linear" here. But I digress...)

This simply isn't true. In 3e, 3.5e, and 4e, the rule books suggest that while the encounters should scale in a broad sense, that individually they should vary from easy to difficult. In 3e, the book specifically said that about 15% of encounters should be ones that the characters should run away from. The levels help the DM figure out what kind of encounter is one that the players can and cannot handle.

Furthermore, the "sandbox" or "status quo" DM typically does not scale encounters to character level at all. The party faces whatever they find, and if it is too easy to be interesting, or too hard for them to beat, well, then that's what happens.

I point this out not to say there's no value in your ideas, but to note that there's some false premises, to prevent you from working to fix things that aren't actually broken.

Any number of GMs could perhaps use some advice on how to manage character growth relating to things that aren't combat-focused. Tearing apart the whole system and starting from scratch with entire new concepts of development to achieve that seems to me rather like knocking down a house because you want to put in one room. Sure, you can do that, but it perhaps isn't the most efficient approach.

 

[KidSnide]

At this point, it is hard to find a game design reason for leveling to exist. Character powers rise linearly, but the game assumes that the characters face linearly more powerful obstacles or problems. This neutralizes the whole leveling dimension mechanic wise. The only way that remains for the leveling mechanic to be utilized is its descriptive characterization. That would be akin of having the powers of 4e be made only with fluff and no crunch.

This analysis would be correct if the character powers increased solely in power and not in nature. If level 30 wizards just have a stronger version of magic missile that does more damage and can hit higher level characters, the leveling mechanics would be essentially empty and the difference between a powerful character and a weak character is purely one of fluff.

But that's not how most RPGs work. In most RPGs (and certainly for 4e and 1e-3e casters), your powers change in nature as well as effectiveness. A higher level character might be able to teleport around the battlefield, dominate an opponent, or turn insubstantial to avoid an attack -- tricks the same character was not able to do at lower levels. Similarly, the opponents faced don't just have more hit points and higher defenses. They also have a similarly more fiendish set of powers to set against the PCs.

These changes serve multiple purposes. First, they keep the game interesting, because combat tactics change as your character gets access to new abilities. Second, they make the players feel the increasing power of their characters, not just because they can defeat enemies from which they used to run (which would also be possible in your fluff-only system), but also because they defeat them with new things that they couldn't do before. Incrementing the numbers matters, but it's using your new trick against your old foe that makes you feel the progress your character has made.

- - - - -

As an aside, lest it be lost, I think D&D can be fairly criticized for an over-emphasis on character leveling. With 30 levels, there is a pressure for GMs to let their players experience the full range of power, potentially at the expense of a coherent story. After all, your range of possible campaign arcs is seriously limited if challenging a god or demon price is the expected climax. Of course, GMs are free to break that paradigm, but the WotC material is probably overly focused on universe threatening stories.

-KS

 

[1Mac]

However, I note that you report they are all different sorts of resources [in Fantasy Craft], each with their own systems for adjudication.

I know. I just meant that as an example of a system that makes mechanical elements of the game that are usually purely narrative, which I think is part of the trouble in imagining xenchao's proposal.

Point buy systems are, by their nature, far more flexible than systems that use levels - players can buy all sorts of different abilities, and tailor their character to be exactly what they want (or as close to as the rules will allow, anyway). However, that means that a character can often be built haphazardly, so to be minimally effective, or in so focused a manner as to be nearly broken*.

...Now, take that one step further. All the "advancement" is pooled together. I now have to try to balance an adventure for the guy who has focused on getting combat tricks with the guy who has focused on getting the narrative-based bennies (say, favors from people of note). That becomes... downright ugly.

That's a good point, and a fair concern. I've certainly seen how point-buy systems could be capable of this. Brokenness, not to mention thematic incoherence, are likely outcomes from giving players unfettered access to a wide range of different abilities. I think the typical way around this is to limit access to abilities, even in an open system. Leveling is one example, ability trees, like in Storyteller and other point-buy systems, are another. Both of these organize restricted access to abilities by the advancement of character power, so xechnao is broadly referring to these methods as "leveling," since d20-style leveling is emblematic of this type of organization.

I think the idea behind "locationing" is to restrict access to abilities (and other elements) not on the advancement of character power, but the advancement of story. So it is not the overwhelming grab-bag of power that you rightly fear, but just a different means of organization.

By the way, @xenchao: is my presentation, or the presentation of others, close to what you have in mind? I feel like I'm groping around in the dark, so if you clarified it would be appreciated.

 

[xechnao]

This simply isn't true. In 3e, 3.5e, and 4e, the rule books suggest that while the encounters should scale in a broad sense, that individually they should vary from easy to difficult. In 3e, the book specifically said that about 15% of encounters should be ones that the characters should run away from. The levels help the DM figure out what kind of encounter is one that the players can and cannot handle.

But this is not any different. The ratio remains equal across all levels. It is the same on level 1 and the same on level 15. So it seems levels still do not matter about this.

I point this out not to say there's no value in your ideas, but to note that there's some false premises, to prevent you from working to fix things that aren't actually broken.

Broken no, but I feel things are kind of incomplete. I believe that levels is a way to sort things, as you say, but it does creates some inconsistencies regarding verisimilitude and, most importantly, it does not seem to be sufficient to help DMs and players to be as confident about the rest of the gameplay as they are with the resolution of combat.

Any number of GMs could perhaps use some advice on how to manage character growth relating to things that aren't combat-focused. Tearing apart the whole system and starting from scratch with entire new concepts of development to achieve that seems to me rather like knocking down a house because you want to put in one room. Sure, you can do that, but it perhaps isn't the most efficient approach.

I understand your concern and I am in design experimentation mode right now. I may have something more concrete to share soon enough and we will talk about it.

 

[xechnao]

By the way, @xenchao: is my presentation, or the presentation of others, close to what you have in mind? I feel like I'm groping around in the dark, so if you clarified it would be appreciated.

Yeah, I think it is close enough.
I think we have to figure out the dimensions of story or plot development in a simulationist way so to try to develop these kind of mechanics. More or less how combat development is designed.

 

[xechnao]

snip

All good points.

So, I guess I am trying to figure out something that can cover and make sense on the rather broad spectrum of possibilities - beyond universe threatening stories that is.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just thought of something.

Treasure.

For serious. That is how I have been doing treasure in my 4e game.

Look at the environment. Look at the enemies. Look at the items they are likely to have or consider important. Search DDI for keywords related to the environment or creatures. Give them treasure based on that.

Not all powers will be gained from items, of course, but it is a significant part of character power. They're already built in with vague balance (item level).

And if the players get a power they're not fond of, they can swap it out (sell their items). And if the players want a specific power, they can perhaps find it (purchasing items).

 

[xechnao]

snip

Yeah, treasure can be used as a strategic element or resource in the concept of "locationing".

Treasure has its prerequisites:

you need to search for it, you need to carry it in lieu of something else and perhaps you will need to defend it against some predator.

These all make very good sense. I think it is almost a must in the game to be using treasure this way.


Beyond this, I am trying to see if I can figure out something more comprehensive and straightforward. I am experimenting with ideas, then going abstract to model a kind of structure that can hold them and finally trying to see if it can really work out without any unexpected or strange results.


Any ideas are welcome.

 

[Jhaelen]

Instead of gaining levels as you explore the Temple, you learn new tricks. For example maybe after fighting a bunch of earth elementals, you gain a bonus to remain standing on unsure terrain (such as when the elementals stomp the ground in an effort to knock you over). Maybe you learn how to overbalance and knock over those elementals, making them child's play to defeat.

Ah, alright, I can get behind this. I'd call it the 'Super-Mario' approach: certains parts of the world you couldn't visit before open up once you learn how to
- jump higher
- climb slippery cliffs
- fly for short amounts of time
- breathe water
etc.

I think, though, that this is really an orthogonal concept to leveling/point buy/skill-based advancement. I'm doing this all the time in my 3e D&D campaign to keep things fresh for the players. You don't really need any mechanics for this, either.

It goes like this:
adventure site one: a goblin camp
players: wow, cool, simply stabbing at them gets them killed in no time!
(next time in town players invest in better stabbing implements)

adventure site two: ogre lair
players: ouch, trying to stab ogres hurts when we get in range of their big clubs, attacking them with ranged weapons works really well, though!
(next time in town players invest in ranged weapons, wizard learns magic missile)

encounter site three: bat caverns
players: ouch, stabbing or shooting at them doesn't do anything - torching them works great, though!
(next time in town players invest in alchemical fire; wizard learns burning hands)

encounter site four: lava chutes
players: ouch, fire elementals are immune against fire and weapons don't do much either...
etc. etc.

Basically, over time, as the pcs encounter new stuff, they develop a winning strategy for similar encounters and adapt/expand their repertoire of skills & tools to make sure they'll never have a difficult time with them again.

It doesn't really matter if they gain levels at the same time or not. Learning and adapting new strategies works either way.

 

[pemerton]

I very specifically would prefer the combat prowess and general effectiveness of PCs rather divorced from the narrative development. I want to be able to have each able to move without the other, which becomes problematic if they are unified.

In 4e they are unified to a signficant extent (as KidSnide points out). Assuming that a GM uses the monsters published by WoTC more-or-less as written, then low-level campaigns are about fighting goblins, orcs and gnolls, mid-level campaigns are about fighting mind flayers, drow, aboleths and beholders, and high-level campaigns are about fighting demon princes or gods. I'm generalising a bit, but the monster design in 4e seems pretty clearly intended to bring it about that the default campaign narrative is the traditional narrative of D&D.

The only aspects of character advancement in 4e which the rules require to be given an in-game interpretation as an increase in PC power are the entry into a paragon path, and the realisastion of an epic destiny.

(As a footnote to this: It's interesting to see that some monsters which are apt to feature in both the heroic-tier and paragon-tier narrative, like duergar and gnomes, have both heroic-tier and paragon-tier versions. There is no suggestion that, within the gameworld, there are "lesser" and "superior" duergar or gnomes - this is simply a mechanical device to help facilitate the story. And it reinforces the idea that gaining levels, in 4e, is as much about moving through the story as it is about increasing in power.)

This neutralizes the whole leveling dimension mechanic wise. The only way that remains for the leveling mechanic to be utilized is its descriptive characterization. That would be akin of having the powers of 4e be made only with fluff and no crunch.

I don't fully agree, for the reasons KidSnide gives. Higher level powers not only introduce new fluff, that fluff brings crunch with it (eg teleporting, phasing etc). But in any event the main purpose of levelling in 4e seems to be to drive the narrative ie it opens the door to paragon paths and epic destinies, and to new categories of challenge (as I said above, it drives the traditional narrative of D&D).

I think the idea behind "locationing" is to restrict access to abilities (and other elements) not on the advancement of character power, but the advancement of story.

For the reasons given above, I think 4e aims at this to a significant extent. Advancement of character power is a proxy for advancement of story.

Gaining powers is often the core of character advancement in RPGs on the one hand, while adventure design often includes the opportunities for plot hooks and story devices on the other hand. I think the idea here is to unify these two mechanics as a means of advancement that is more tied to the narrative than conventional point-buy or leveling.

As I've said, I think 4e aims at this to a fairly significant extent as it stands.