Reverse Expectations

[Dannager]

How is an opinion on a matter of taste 'discredited' or "demonstrably false"?

Having a personal preference for one or the other is fine. Making the claim that someone isn't playing D&D correctly because they're not playing it sandbox-style (or railroad-style, or whatever-style) is a tired notion that has been thoroughly discredited. All too often we see the implication (as in this thread) that if you restrict player choice, you're railroading, and if you're railroading, you're doingitwrong.

Also, "demonstrably false" was in reference to level scaling removing all player choice, not in reference to the idea that "railroading is badwrongfun" has merit.

One of the problems we're having is that people are tossing around the term "railroading" whenever they feel like it, and it's diluting the term to near-meaninglessness. If your definition of railroading is "restricting player choice", then I argue that by virtue of the fact that you're playing a game with rules, you are unavoidably railroading to begin with, so using that definition does not serve any discussion of tabletop gaming. In order to have real meaning here, "railroading" needs to have a much tighter definition.

 

[Haltherrion]

Traveller is a good example of a level-less system. And while your character gets stronger pre-game as you do the chargen, it doesn't get materially stronger once in play.

Making your character more fragile at higher levels can be accomplished in almost any leveling system by leveling the foes faster than the characters. Level 1s fight level 0s, level 5s fight level 8s, level 10s fight level 15s.

I suppose that could work if the game focus is on RP and not combat but if there is a reasonable amount of combat in the game it just seems like a way to get the PCs killed. What's the point of that?

 

[Fifth Element]

Lemme know when you find a quote of me saying "level scaling removes all player choice". Actually, go ahead and find a quote of me saying "level scaling removes player choice".

Okay, what did you mean by "railroading" then? It's possible that you mean something quite different than everyone else means by the term.

 

[Mort]

Ok my reading comprehension may not be at its highest today but how is this:

If you're taking away the player's ability to choose the danger level of the challenges they're facing, then you're removing their meaningful choices. If you're removing their meaningful choices, you're railroading them. QED.

not a direct answer to this:

Lemme know when you find a quote of me saying "level scaling removes all player choice". Actually, go ahead and find a quote of me saying "level scaling removes player choice".

(Hint: You're going to have a difficult time since I actually said the exact opposite of that.)

I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing here. If you ever become interested in discussing things I actually said, lemme know.

 

[Dannager]

A little confused by that as well, but he should certainly be given a chance to respond.

 

[Ariosto]

Traveller is a good example of a level-less system. And while your character gets stronger pre-game as you do the chargen, it doesn't get materially stronger once in play.

Traveller does not have character levels (although 4-year terms both prior to and during play serve as a rough gauge).

It has skill levels, though, and those can (along with ability scores serving as hit points) get stronger in play.

Traveller characters can also attain financial wealth, technological advantages, and position.

 

[Ariosto]

As somebody has already pointed out, the whole business about opponents "of your level" getting more powerful more rapidly and so making PC death more likely involves a set of peculiar assumptions. Most specifically, they are peculiar to a way that many people play 3e and 4e D&D.

My assumption about the assumption is that the OP figured that most people would be familiar with the implications, and so the formula would conveniently and clearly express the intended arrangement. I don't think it was meant to convey the notion that 'levels' automatically have such an effect in games (such as old D&D) with different structures.

 

[Haltherrion]

Traveller does not have character levels (although 4-year terms both prior to and during play serve as a rough gauge).

It has skill levels, though, and those can (along with ability scores serving as hit points) get stronger in play.

Traveller characters can also attain financial wealth, technological advantages, and position.

Even so, in the end it is pretty level-less. I don't recall too many post chargen level ups from my distant traveller days but I suppose that is a matter of style.

 

[Votan]

Even so, in the end it is pretty level-less. I don't recall too many post chargen level ups from my distant traveller days but I suppose that is a matter of style.

Back in the day, I remember increasing skills or attributes in Traveller to be extremely difficult. Most of the rewards that I recall involved money, achieving goals (often just "keep the Free Trader out of bankruptcy"), social connections and exploring a strange world.

The last was the most interesting. And that is why I was never a fan to the answer to the riddle of who the ancients were. Many of the good genre fiction books of the era left that question unanswered and a sense of mystery was a good thing.

That being said, as a new character was similar in competence to an existing character, actual death wasn't that important. But the stakes often rose as the campaign went on and nobody was really immune to a hit from a PGMP (or, even worse, an FGMP).

I think that was an interesting and equally valid way to develop a game.

 

[Haltherrion]

Back in the day, I remember increasing skills or attributes in Traveller to be extremely difficult. Most of the rewards that I recall involved money, achieving goals (often just "keep the Free Trader out of bankruptcy"), social connections and exploring a strange world.

Yeah per the chargen system you should only expect 1-3 skill points per 4 year period so you wouldn't expect alot in play. We basically never gave skill points but IIRC our games were more short duration.

The last was the most interesting. And that is why I was never a fan to the answer to the riddle of who the ancients were. Many of the good genre fiction books of the era left that question unanswered and a sense of mystery was a good thing.

Yeah can be a very fun them (see Firefly ) and a nice counterpoint to heroic FRPGs.

But the stakes often rose as the campaign went on and nobody was really immune to a hit from a PGMP (or, even worse, an FGMP).

Very true. Something I didn't like in my youth but can now appreciate. It's kind of fun to have a system where it all doesn't just come down to who is better in combat. For one thing, it means it's not such a big deal to have a young PC with half the skills of an old PCs as long as he brings something different to the table. Very different concept than most leveling systems.