No Advancement... but not for D&D

[Aus_Snow]

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.

The same guidelines (of common sense, and possibly good taste, substantially) that ideally should apply to chargen in M&M, should also - again, ideally - apply to the advancement process. Because, yeah, there's nothing (rules-wise) stopping someone from building a "Batman" who can fly, straight away, equally.

It's not a system that works well if any player's attitude is "**** you! It says right here I can do that. . . technically! So there!" Just as is the case with ony of the more or less similar systems out there, actually.

 

[Ariosto]

In Villains & Vigilantes (old 2nd, as I don't have 2.1), comparison of experience levels modifies the chance to hit, and level is a factor in calculating "security clearance." It might figure in other ways, too.

Each level, you get "inventing points" equal to 1/10 your Intelligence. Among other things, one can use those to attempt creating new devices -- such as Tony Stark upgrading his Iron Man armor, or Reed Richards (yet again) zapping Ben Grimm so he doesn't have to be the Thing all the time.

The standard "training" options to undertake from level to level, though, are pretty subtle and just improve effectiveness of powers already possessed.

Along with the default semi-random assignment of powers, these factors help -- to my mind -- evoke the comic-book sources of inspiration (which might be different from the sources inspiring more recent super-hero games).

There can be a lot of convenience in making characters from the start at some "power level" that may fluctuate a bit but is not an ever-upward climb that makes rungs on the ladder critical (to the point of excluding most other possibilities in the game as "inappropriate").

Changing capabilities can be very interesting! When, for instance, people have some frangible magic in D&D (a potion, a scroll, a wand with a few charges, etc.), when and how to use it can be a decisive choice.

When things are always available, they tend to sort out into clearly optimal and sub-optimal options and "standard operating procedures".

 

[Verdande]

I honestly am a big fan of limiting character advancement in D&D. If you like, you can look up the arguments to playing Holmes-edition Basic D&D as a complete game if you like, or the E6 version of the 3.5 edition game for arguments about hard-limiting character advancement.

The basics are that limiting character advancement means that you have to reward your players in-game with rewards like power and prestige, as well as connections in the world instead of "hey, good job saving the world, have 300 experience." It also keeps the world relatively similar to our own, where a troll is a problem at any point in one's life. Players have to rely on their wits and skill to defeat the more powerful foes instead of masses of hit points or killer spells. It's a different game, but it can certainly be enjoyable.