More "realistic" advancement in D&D?

[Mercurius]

Note: I posted this over at RPG.Net to get a "non-D&D-centric" perspective and mainly go the response: "You shouldn't be playing D&D." So I thought I'd post it here to get a more D&D-centric viewpoint. I don't disagree with that view, that D&D is not best suited for what I am asking for, but I'm also curious as to how it may be applied to the game, particularly 4ed, but it could be any edition.

Realistic Advancement in RPGs (and is it possible in D&D?)

One thing I've always found annoying about D&D is the vast difference between a low and high level character, where a hundred 1st level characters wouldn't be able to take down one 20th level one, probably not even one 10th level one. I am all for heroism and fantasy, but I'm also interested in some degree of "realism"--I guess what Ron Edwards called simulationism.

A particularly irksome aspect of this quality is how the PCs always seem to run into similar level monsters and NPCs, as if any monsters or NPCs more than three levels difference seem to fade away into the background of the campaign world. I know some DMs, including myself, try to take a more naturalistic approach, even warning the players "I might throw anything at you, so know when it run away." But even though this is conscious in me I find it tempting to stick only to appropriate encounter levels.

The vast difference in levels and the way advancement is handled creates a weird kind of dissonance in the campaign world, where you have the PCs going on a mega-adventure lasting a few months in the game world but taking a year of weekly sessions and making it to 20th level, and then you have NPCs in published products like Paizo's excellent Seekers of Secrets that are supposed to represent seasoned veterans in positions of power that have gone on dozens of quests over a decade or more of adventuring, but are "only" 10th level.

In D&D advancement seems pretty consistent across the levels, so that a 5th level character is about five times as powerful as they were at 1st level, or if it can't be that quantified, "a lot more powerful" suffices. 4E evened this out a bit in that 1st level characters are about the equivalent of 3rd-5th in earlier editions, and there is less of a difference between 1st and 5th, although still a significant one (as there should be).

While I like this aspect of 4E, I still find it somewhat disconcerting that with the default rule system a PC can go from 1st level to near-godlike status in a matter of a year of adventuring. A good DM can space this out somewhat, but there is no getting around the fact that if you follow the rules as written, you can advance a character from being fresh out of apprenticeship to one of the greatest archmages in the world in a matter of months (game time), or weeks if you tried hard enough.

Now if I were to imagine a "realistic" fantasy world--that is one that follows similar basic laws as our own plus magic, dragons, and all that good stuff--I would think advancement would occur in smaller increments, and would diminish over time. So in terms of power increase you might get something like this:

1-----2----3---4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20.21.22.23...etc

In the above scheme, the difference between each level in terms of power gradually diminishes, and then evens out during the "paragon" tier (11-20th), slows down a bit more at 21st level and evens out to an even smaller increase. If a short adventure represents approximately one level, the idea being that after your first adventure would be your largest jump in terms of skill and power level. You are no longer "wet behind the ears"; you have bloodied your sword, cast spells in strenuous circumstances, channeled your god's power against evil, etc. After that, advancement would still occur but it would gradually decrease.

I am basing this sense of "realism" on how we develop skills in our own world; if you practice a musical instrument or other artistic discipline diligently, you can achieve a basic degree of mastery within a few years; but deeper levels take much longer. In other words, the difference in a musician's technical ability between just starting and a year is much greater than between 4 and 5 years. Advancement does come in leaps and bounds, so that the concept of levels actually is somewhat realistic, but my sense is that the increases aren't necessarily less frequent, just less monumental.

Now you could do what older editions of D&D did and make level advancement slow to a crawl. In recent editions, however--4E certainly and probably 3E--the game is structured so that advancement continues at a similar pace throughout, so that the power increase between 16th and 17th level is similar to 4th and 5th (for example).

So my question is two-fold:

1) What are examples of some games in which advancement is more "realistic," that it slows down so that the difference between (the equivalent of) a 10th and 11th level character is less than between a 2nd and 3rd?

2) Any suggestions on how to tailor D&D 4E to make advancement more gradual and realistic?

To start answering my own questions, this is what comes to mind:

1) I've never played Runequest and only played Call of Cthulhu once, but my impression is that their shared system has a gradual and diminishing approach to advancement which, in some ways, exemplifies the type of "realistic" approach I'm lookfor.

2) The whole "E6" or "E8" concept seems to fit, although it is a bit more extreme than I would want. The obvious solution would be to simply slow advancement down, but I don't want to take away the satisfaction of "leveling up" every few sessions. Perhaps there is some way to apply the basic principles found in Runequest/Call of Cthulhu to D&D?

END NOTE: In lieu of some of the responses I got at RPG.Net, and by way of clarification, I wanted to emphasize that I don't as much want to negate or slow down leveling up, but am interested in exploring ways in which gaining a level could still be significant but quite as significant, especially cumulatively over many levels, as the current 4E rules. I am in particular trying to get at the discrepancy in both the vast difference in power between lower and higher levels (or even low and middle), but also the awkwardness of supposedly powerful NPCs "only" being of a level (say, Paragon tier, 11th+ level) that can be reached by PCs after just a few adventures and as little as a few weeks within the game.

One possible solution I've thought of would be to have a maximum of, say, one level gained for one month of game time. Levels gained within a longer adventure could be made up for after the adventure is over; e.g. let's say a party goes from from 1st to 4th level in the course of one adventure. After the adventure was over, the DM would say "four months pass when a hooded figure approaches you in the Happy Harpy Inn..."

This doesn't entirely solve the "problem," but it at least takes care of the most ridiculous aspect of it, that is that one could go from apprenticeship to demigodhood in a matter of months. At least now it would take a couple years!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My suggestions might be:
- Drop the half level bonus and all related bonuses (enhancement bonuses from items most importantly). This way, you might need 100 1st Level Kobolds to challenge a 20th level character, but they really can, since they can reliably hit the character.

- Increase the XP gaps between levels. You could create a very large "artifical" at the tier ranges (10-11 and 20-21) to really signify that the characters are moving to a new "level" of levels.

- Play a different RPG than D&D.

- Break up levels into multiple advancements. Maybe split up every level the character gets a new power in two or three "stages". At the first stage, an encounter power can be used once per day. At the second stage, it can be used once per milestone. At the final stage, it actually works like an encounter power.

- Require training times. Maybe not even every level. You could require it every 5 levels for example, or before every level that grants a new power, showing that the PC has kinda reached a "plateau" in practice and needs to train new techniques.

---

But remember the tyranny of fun. Do you think that the players will really enjoy a more "realistic" experience better? One of your biggest issues is that levelling is part of the fun of playing the game. It is a reward that keeps coming every few adventures. It is something guaranteed to look forward too, basically, regardless of story and action going on. It's something you can plan for. The longer it takes to get there, the less interesting the character might feel. My personal impression is - the slower the advancement in a game becomes, the more interesting does it become to just abandon your character and try something new. Because it's really the only way to "reinvent" something about what you play. If you know a new level is waiting around, and you'll get a new feat or power, you know you'll get a new trick, something to make the character feel different, to feel the power and to feel the new options. But if that's far off... well, the Barbarian/Sorcerer Hybrid you read on the internet sounds kinda cool, and you also have this backstory about a Barbarian tribe and their Dragon hunting tradition and...

 

[Garmorn]

sniped

One possible solution I've thought of would be to have a maximum of, say, one level gained for one month of game time. Levels gained within a longer adventure could be made up for after the adventure is over; e.g. let's say a party goes from from 1st to 4th level in the course of one adventure. After the adventure was over, the DM would say "four months pass when a hooded figure approaches you in the Happy Harpy Inn..."

This doesn't entirely solve the "problem," but it at least takes care of the most ridiculous aspect of it, that is that one could go from apprenticeship to demigodhood in a matter of months. At least now it would take a couple years!

With 4e travel takes time. Enforce the time it takes to do things like travel between cities and adventure sites. A typical trip for low levels could easily take 2 weeks. (From buy supplies to return and selling/recovering.) Make them spend time looking for new jobs (You don't need to be detailed - just every one role a Diplomacy check - DC 25) If no one makes it no job is found that day. Roll play out the hiring and so own. Add bad weather that delays things. Have you ever tried to hike in a snow storm?. People don't go hiking in summer because of the heat. This will add life to your world and spend time with out feeling artificial.

I can't give you a diffident rules answer besides this: Talk with your players and see if they mind a xp reduction. The reduction is x% of what the monster are worth normally. You do the math and then tell them. (Do this after the fact so it does not interfere with encounter creation.)

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I like 4E, but realism and 4E are not really twins here.

4E is designed on a certain style of game, and that game is, as the OP said, a game of meeting even challenges. Sure, your Ac is 40, where it was once 20, but the monsters ahve +20 more to hit now as compared to then so it is effectively a wash. So, yes you cannot really put +10 or -10 monsters up against a party or it is a slaughter. (Though +10 has usually been TPK territory for most of D&D's history.)

It is just how D&D is set up. The whole levels thing.

Now, I like Deadlands a lot (classic, not d20 or revised) as you can be Awesomegreatcool with guns and skills and such, but you can still be put down by peons with shotguns. One bad roll an kill or main you. And that is how the game was set up to run, and characters tend to be a lot more careful because of it.

I do like Mustrum_Ridcully's idea of dropping BLB and such. I'll have to think on that a bit.

Have an xp MR.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Another thought is the campaign.

I know some people like playing the same character and the same campaign for years, and are satisfied with moderate to slow to (snail-paced) advancement rates.

But that is not for me.

I like to play a game, advance fairly frequently, and then when that is done, move on to a new game.

I've thought my gaming is more like a novel. Both running and playing. I enjoy the situation, and the adventure, but if it is dragged on too long, I get bored. Give me a trilogy at best, not a 12 part series.

 

[Oni]

You really need to flatten the power curve. I think that getting rid of the half level bonus that gets applied to just about every die roll and defense is the place to start. That of course applies to the monsters as well. Though keeping in mind that the level appropriate monsters also have the bonuses from weapon/armour/neck factored into their rolls/defenses. There are a few things you can do, make additional adjustments to the monsters' numbers and ditch +X magic items, keep +X magic items, or give +X bonus to PC's as they level as sort of flattened out advancement rate, while simultaneously chucking +X items. Any of these should keep the basic math of 4e sound, while allowing a wider range of levels to be viable in play together.

If you're willing to go farther with adjusting things, the next place to start clipping the power curve down to size is HP, by cutting down the HP per level you can really narrow that gap, though you'll have to do the same for the monsters if you want to keep the basic balance of the game intact. This would also bring down the grind problem a bit, I think.

 

[buddhafrog]

I'm completely in agreement with the OP

I haven't played D&D in almost 20 years. I'm not starting to DM again (4e) with my 3rd grade son and two 6th grade friends. So far, I'm pretty optimistic on how things are starting to progress -- but I'm houseruling to a degree that some might say I'm not even playing D&D. I wouldn't argue with that opinion either.

I haven't played in so long, and I have too little time to invest in researching all the different possibilities, and because I have fond memories and basic knowledge of AD&D, that I decided to just go with 4e and change what needed to be changed for our game.

I want things to be more realistic in terms of slower advancement, more role-playing, non-combat skills/traits being more important, training required for some advancement, powers given not just b/c I have a card/power that says so, but b/c it *makes sense* in a battle.

Some of the actual houserules I've used are:

• doing away with the 1/2 level rule -- my kids already have too much confusion, numbers to add, and powers advance too fast.
• giving 1 ability +1 (PC choice) per level so they feel the advancement
• starting the player with 1 daily, 2/3 encounter, 2/3 at-wills. Only one of the encounters would be attack based (i.e. giving "inspiring word" or "windwalker" -- cool things that kids like that help them be creative in how they use their PC)
• Giving them an additional power or feat per level (alternate) -- they choose -- but they have to find a higher level NPC to train them and take time to do so. We spend plenty of time in towns, so this is not too difficult
• tweaked the heal skill slightly to make it more possible for others to heal a dying PC up to 1 HP (they're kids, they don't want to die)
• I'm lowering most monster HP and (AC slightly) for faster battles
• Giving them an extra attack after *stunning* a monster -- but our *stunning* means make monster bloodied in one hit (vs. saving throw) or after a critical hit (vs. saving throw)

(to name some of the houserules)

We've just started, so I may find these are more problematic than helpful, but initially, it seems to work. I also might find that as we progress, this is just more work for me instead of following the script exactly. There is probably a better game out there for us to play, but this seems to work well enough.

 

[buddhafrog]

There are a few things you can do, make additional adjustments to the monsters' numbers and ditch +X magic items, keep +X magic items, or give +X bonus to PC's as they level as sort of flattened out advancement rate, while simultaneously chucking +X items

Sorry for being ignorant, but what do you mean by this? I'm trying find easy/effective ways to level the power balance and might want to do this. Anyone?

 

[Oni]

Sorry for being ignorant, but what do you mean by this? I'm trying find easy/effective ways to level the power balance and might want to do this. Anyone?

There is an assumption built into the game that PC's will have level appropriate gear, especially the three most important slots, implement/weapon, armour, and neck. Those offer bonuses to hitting and defenses, and the monsters are built to factor that gear in when determining their hit and defense bonuses.

So if you want to remove the half level bonuses and have the basic math of the game remain as the designers intended then you have to account for the +X bonuses from magic items. The simplest way to do this is just to leave the +X items as is and forget about it. Alternately if you want to flatten the power curve more you can remove them, but then it will skew the game too far toward the monsters at higher levels and so you'll have to compensate by making adjustments to the monsters' bonuses based on the expected bonuses of PC's of the monsters' levels. Or, if like me, you don't like the reliance on magic items, and the treadmill of acquiring bigger and bigger bonuses, you can simply make the expected +X items bonuses an inherent one. Each will give you a slightly different feel.


Not to dissuade you from 4e, it's a fine choice, but if you're looking for a simple version of D&D to play with kids might I also suggest Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game it's free and has a lot in common with older versions of the game, but updates some of the clunkier mechanics like thac0 and descending AC.

There are some other free retro clones available that are a little more traditional as well. Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, and OSRIC (which is AD&D for all practical purposes) spring to mind. The more traditional ones have the advantage of lots of fan material, that is all roughly compatible with each other and the original games they're based on.

Heh, I'm getting increasingly off topic, hopefully I answered your question though.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The thing is I had a different take from the thread title than what I read from the OP.

Aside: When I think about realism in the context of leveling up is that knowledge aquisition in rpgs do not match how we do it in real life. In real life all the wizards would be better fighters than in D&D (any editon) because they would have picked up tricks from the fighters/rogues/rangers in the party. All the non magic types would have smattering of basic magic theory from hanging with the wizard and helping with rituals and so forth and some of the more dexterous party members would have picked up some trap and picklocking from the rogue.

Of course I am well aware that the needs class/character balance and niche protection preclude a lot of this but I am just throwing it out there.

Now back to the OP's points.

My initial reaction is not to play D&D but play Warhammer where the characters do not generally get much harder to kill but much better at killing things (though I am not sure how this works in 3rd edition)

However in the context of D&D, if you want this then at some point you have to stop the defenses rising. You will also have to slow down offensive output, both to hit numbers and damage output.

Where and how you do that is up to you. There are some good suggestions in the thread. I think that as well as some of those, that you should so an E12 game.