Tall vs broad advancement in RPGs

[MGibster]

I don't tend to run or play in very long campaigns these days, so I generally want characters to hit the ground running and I'm not concerned about increasing power levels. Overall I guess I prefer a broad approach. For a game like Cyberpunk 2020, Call of Cthulhu, or even Savage Worlds, the mook that can kill your novice character can also kill your very experienced character. I kind of like that, but it reflects my preference for somewhat lower powered, more grounded games.

 

[Tonguez]

Exalted 3e seems to be both broad with its abilities and tall with essence and charms and directly built for Wuxia

 

[Emerikol]

This is the primary issue with GURPS and I may fix it at some point. GURPS needs character levels. Not character classes but character levels. Skills need to be limited by level.

I think one of the top reasons RPGs caught on was tall advancement. Zero to hero. I also think that is why games that don't cater to that idea tend to have far smaller audiences.

 

[Celebrim]

This is the primary issue with GURPS and I may fix it at some point. GURPS needs character levels. Not character classes but character levels. Skills need to be limited by level.

I think one of the top reasons RPGs caught on was tall advancement. Zero to hero. I also think that is why games that don't cater to that idea tend to have far smaller audiences.

GURPS needs a serious overhaul in just about every aspect. I haven't touched it since 3e or so and I understand there have been some attempts to fix it, but the fundamental design of the game is just wrong on almost every level. It really took trying to run GURPS for me to really appreciate the genius of D&D.

I would seriously nominate GURPS for the worst designed skill system in the history of tabletop RPGs. GURPS is what you get when you apply nothing but intuition to how a game should work with no real extrapolation into how this is really going to play. It's bizarre to me that the same designer made something as elegant as Ogre.

The combat system also breaks around the margins and its adherence to intuitive process realism rather than cinematic realism or casual realism means that the combat is about as fun as actual combat and doesn't really support genre that well. But at least it is functional as a game in a way the skill system just really isn't.

The Universal aspect of GURPS that I think was it's biggest appeal is a bit of an illusion. It's universal in the same sense D20 is, in that it can act as the core mechanic if you carefully build a genre around it, but the genres aren't compatible with each other in any sense. Points in one genre don't translate to points in the other. Characters built with a certain number of points in one genre aren't balanced with characters built with a similar number of points in another. There is probably more compatibility between two D20 games that there is within GURPS itself.

What GURPS was really good at was lonely fun. It's of the same genre as Star Fleet Battles or Car Wars. GURPS sold a lot more books than it sold games IME.

 

[TwoSix]

I thought I felt that way for most of the time I played RPGs, but having played games that basically don't have rules for advancement (Mothership might as well not, for how much of a fantasy the rules it has for that are), I've found I'm actually kind of fine with it so long as we're not running a long campaign.

I mean, if I were to generalize this concept, it's that I don't want to feel like my character is static over a period of more than 3-4 sessions. The gameplay should vary as my character encounters new situations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

GURPS needs a serious overhaul in just about every aspect. I haven't touched it some like 3e or so and I understand there have been some attempts to fix it, but the fundamental design of the game is just wrong on almost every level. It really took trying to run GURPS for me to really appreciate the genius of D&D.

I would seriously nominate GURPS for the worst designed skill system in the history of tabletop RPGs. GURPS is what you get when you apply nothing but intuition to how a game should work with no real extrapolation into how this is really going to play. It's bizarre to me that the same designer made something as elegant as Ogre.

The combat system also breaks around the margins and its adherence to intuitive process realism rather than cinematic realism or casual realism means that the combat is about as fun as actual combat and doesn't really support genre that well. But at least it is functional as a game in a way the skill system just really isn't.

The Universal aspect of GURPS that I think was it's biggest appeal is a bit of an illusion. It's universal in the same sense D20 is, in that it can act as the core mechanic if you carefully build a genre around it, but the genres aren't compatible with each other in any sense. Points in one genre don't translate to points in the other. Characters built with a certain number of points in one genre aren't balanced with characters built with a similar number of points in another. There is probably more compatibility between two D20 games that there is within GURPS itself.

What GURPS was really good at was lonely fun. It's of the same genre as Star Fleet Battles or Car Wars. GURPS sold a lot more books than it sold games IME.

So...not a fan?

 

[Emerikol]

GURPS needs a serious overhaul in just about every aspect. I haven't touched it some like 3e or so and I understand there have been some attempts to fix it, but the fundamental design of the game is just wrong on almost every level. It really took trying to run GURPS for me to really appreciate the genius of D&D.

I would seriously nominate GURPS for the worst designed skill system in the history of tabletop RPGs. GURPS is what you get when you apply nothing but intuition to how a game should work with no real extrapolation into how this is really going to play. It's bizarre to me that the same designer made something as elegant as Ogre.

The combat system also breaks around the margins and its adherence to intuitive process realism rather than cinematic realism or casual realism means that the combat is about as fun as actual combat and doesn't really support genre that well. But at least it is functional as a game in a way the skill system just really isn't.

The Universal aspect of GURPS that I think was it's biggest appeal is a bit of an illusion. It's universal in the same sense D20 is, in that it can act as the core mechanic if you carefully build a genre around it, but the genres aren't compatible with each other in any sense. Points in one genre don't translate to points in the other. Characters built with a certain number of points in one genre aren't balanced with characters built with a similar number of points in another. There is probably more compatibility between two D20 games that there is within GURPS itself.

What GURPS was really good at was lonely fun. It's of the same genre as Star Fleet Battles or Car Wars. GURPS sold a lot more books than it sold games IME.

Some people like it. I'd probably dispute almost everything you said.

 

[Celebrim]

So...not a fan?

Nope. Soured me on point buy, non-linear fortune mechanics, active defenses, and a whole lot of other things to this day.

 

[GMMichael]

What made me think about it was reading the recent crop of, for want of a better word, D&D alternatives such as Draw Steel, Daggerheart, and (to a lesser degree) Shadowdark, Advanced Tiny Dungeon, and Dragonbane. It's quite interesting to see how much broad vs tall advancement there is in these games. . .

I'd like to hear your take on these. I've seen the Dragonbane free quickstart, but I couldn't tell you how broad/tall it was from the small sample.

I'm certainly not asking if you prefer tall or broad advancement - that really depends on the campaign you're running - but what do you think? Are there any fun tall advancement fantasy games you'd recommend I haven't thought of?

Well yeah! Modos 2, my ENnie nominee, uses an a la carte progression system by default. Players choose an attribute bump, skill bump, and a perk (the wild card) at each character level. So doing some literal god smacking is largely a matter of putting one's points where one needs them.* GMs wanting meteoric advancement can easily give additional level awards or magic item bonuses, like a fixed physical health bonus (hit points), or a corresponding default damage bump to attacks.

* Officially, doing something "divine," which is probably what the gods do, is a difficulty benchmark of 20. So a GM rolling a god's contests (for some reason) is adding at least 20 to those rolls. A lucky PC with a 1 point bonus to smacking going up against an unlucky god (with +20 on most rolls) has a 1:400 chance of getting a decent hit in.

But when games don't have rules for advancement, or they just generally suggest that what you have at the start is what you have (outside of finding items or narrative advancement) I just immediately become disinterested.

For what it's worth, Modos 2 promotes (but doesn't require) broad advancement in different ways. For one, three damage pools means three different ways to become disabled (not dead). Putting all of one's defense eggs in one basket is risky. For another, some skills are "locked," meaning diversification is needed to do some things. Otherwise, teamwork (gasp) might be needed.

Another issue I have with games very focused on broad advancement, is that very often to give you the feeling of progressing, the number of options you'll have is very limited at the start. To give you the space to acquire new options. I've often found the start (earlier levels) to feel very limited.

Hmm. With the exception of 4th level-and-up powers, I think Modos 2's a la carte options are all on the table at the start. But if that's not enough, the free form Hero Point allows just about anything else that the PC and GM can agree upon, albeit at a flexible daily limit.

 

[aco175]

I think I'm more of a D&D tall advancement player. I like the zero-to-hero advancement. I also like what 5e did with spreading out the 'sweet spot' of levels to play longer in the levels of not struggling, but before things get too easy to overcome everything. Goes to the threads about campaigns ending by tier 3.

I think part of my liking this advancement is the classes and how each should be something special. A 10th level fighter should be better at killing things than a 10th level mage or a 5th level fighter. Choosing to multiclass should mean that you give up this cool power to kill things better if you want to be a 5th level fighter and 5th level mage over a 10th level fighter.