No Advancement... but not for D&D

[MerricB]

My recent Serenity campaign tossed aside the concept of advancement altogether after a couple of sessions. Why did I do that? Well, largely it was because when I run a skill-based game rather than a level-based game, I find that advancement tends to run very strangely.

Then too, the characters are competent enough to do what they needed to do (well, as much as the system allowed them to), so actual advancement wasn't so necessary.

Instead, far more important to the game were rewards in terms of plot and personality, as well as "hard" rewards like a home base for their ship and trade cargo.

This is in distinct contrast to D&D, where I'm not particularly fond of freezing advancement. I'm a lot happier with advancement using level-based systems, as the characters tend not to "get weird" with their abilities. To add to this, the system gives a lot of interesting foes and powers as PCs go up in level - it seems a shame not to explore them!

Cheers!

 

[Saeviomagy]

My recent Serenity campaign tossed aside the concept of advancement altogether after a couple of sessions. Why did I do that? Well, largely it was because when I run a skill-based game rather than a level-based game, I find that advancement tends to run very strangely.

What do you mean? Do you mean that what characters become good at is disjointed from what they do in-game, or something else?

 

[MerricB]

What do you mean? Do you mean that what characters become good at is disjointed from what they do in-game, or something else?

Ultraspecialisation was the biggest problem I've had running previous skill-based games (that is, game that allow advancing of individual skills - more correctly, the ones that work as point-based).

There are a few games that have "check boxed" advancement: after an adventure, you get to roll for the skills you've used and see if they advance. I don't mind those ones so much, but running a game without much advancement is something I'm moving towards when advancement doesn't really change all that much.

Cheers!

 

[Esteban]

There are a few games that have "check boxed" advancement: after an adventure, you get to roll for the skills you've used and see if they advance.

I've been moving in this direction. I've lived with classes and leveling since first edition, but I've never liked either constructs - just too artificial for my own personal taste.

-Steve

 

[MerricB]

I've been moving in this direction. I've lived with classes and leveling since first edition, but I've never liked either constructs - just too artificial for my own personal taste.

-Steve

The next system I'll be running will likely be Mongoose Traveller. Unlike classic Traveller, it does allow for skill advancement... slowly.

You spend weeks and weeks training one skill one level. Characters who don't have many skills don't take long to train, but characters with a lot of skills can take 1/4 to 1/2 a year in training!

(I assume a lot of the training time comes in ship travel).

Currently, I'm running Call of Cthulhu in a couple of one-shots. Character advancement goes from "Sane" to "Insane" or "Dead". (Yes, theoretically you can advance your character's skills, but that's not going to happen here!)

Cheers!

 

[Ariosto]

Unlike classic Traveller, it does allow for skill advancement... slowly.

Classic Traveller does allow for skill advancement, 'slowly'. Whatever the source of the notion that it does not, the facts are on pp. 42-43 (2nd ed.) of Book 2, or page 103 of The Traveller Book, under the heading of "Experience".

It comes down in the long run to a rate of one level per four-year term (two skills getting a permanent +1 each after eight years), the baseline rate in Book 1 character generation. Book 4 introduced both "advanced" generation and the Training skill (which could impart a level of skill in as little as six weeks).

Consider that "Medical-3 is sufficient for a character to be called a doctor, and assumes a license to practice medicine, including writing prescriptions, handling most ailments, and dealing with other doctors on a professional level."

Theoretically, you could get that M.D. in just one term of character generation, but it's unlikely.

"Highly scientific or esoteric methods are logically available, provided the individuals search hard enough for them." The quest is rather more where the adventure game lies, to my mind, than the racking up of super scores.

=====================================================
By contrast, the original TSR edition (1976) of Jim Ward's Metamorphosis Alpha has no character advancement system at all. There's a small chance of gaining a mutation instead of getting killed by radiation exposure -- but a human who becomes a mutant loses his Leadership Potential (and thus all his followers).

The great fruits of experience in MA are
(a) real knowledge on the player's part
(b) relationships of the character with other characters
(c) equipment
=====================================================

There are a few games that have "check boxed" advancement: after an adventure, you get to roll for the skills you've used and see if they advance.

That's the standard in Chaosium's games, going back to RuneQuest (1978) -- which also has a training system (like OD&D's XP for GP, but not so straightforward). To go from 40% to 45% with shortsword would cost 200 Lunars and two weeks (a bargain vs. other weapons), but it would take use in the field before more training. An adventure would give a 55% chance of raising the skill to 50%. That brings the training into a new bracket (500 L and five weeks for each 5%).

Skill above 75% is possible (for most skills) only from experience checks, not from training. The most one can improve a skill in a week is 10% (5% Training and 5% Experience). It might not be the standard rule, but (if it came up, with someone having so much cash to spend) I would not allow training more than five skills at a time. Each course takes two hours of the day, and 10 hours of training is probably a pretty full slate.

 

[Dragonblade]

I don't use advancement when I run M&M. I allow a few extra points when building a PC, but thats it. You'll never see another power point again.

I've never had a problem. A PL 10 super is pretty formidable right from the getgo so there really isn't a need to "level up". You can make the character you want right at the beginning. Personally, I also feel that advancing an M&M PC doesn't really make sense in the context of comic books. Spider-man doesn't level up. He has undergone changes but pretty much has had the same powers and power level he has always had.

My players play for the story. But it also helps that I'm very flexible about retraining skills, and feats, and allowing players to change characters or to have "accidents" that allow them to rebuild their existing powers.

 

[MerricB]

If I ever played M&M again, I'd be tempted to adopt that strategy. Indeed, increases in Superhero power may well not work on the scale of M&M.

Cheers!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Advancement works just fine in M&M, but then again, it's not what you might call rapid, by default. Also, raising the actual PL need never happen, certainly.

I rather like advancement in (some) skill-based systems. For example, Interlock, where you gain Improvment Points for skills you've actually used, the amount varying according to ingenuity/effectiveness, etc. The higher your skill rating, the more IPs you need to get to the next rating. Intuitive, "realistic" (yeah, I know) - a lot to like, really.

 

[DragonLancer]

I always had trouble justifying character advancement in M&M. It worked for Iron Man clones adding new tech into their suits but the Batman copy should never be able to learn to fly under his own power.