why hate rpg systems with levels?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
I like both level and non-level systems.
Level systems are metagamey in a way, but tend to provide better balance and a continuous goal to work towards. Their power curve is traditionally steep, though it doesn't by definition have to be.
Point buy systems tend to provide the best character customization and a flatter power curve, usually due to unrealistically difficult advancement of top skills - perhaps my only complaint about the lovely SilCore system.
One mechanic I'm considering in d20 is to cap hit point advancement at 4th level for all characters. Since I'm not using D&D spellcasting or iterative attacks, only monsters (which are themselves very rare) and increasingly deadly power attacks will make the world more lethal, and class defense bonus protects against the latter.
Level systems are metagamey in a way, but tend to provide better balance and a continuous goal to work towards. Their power curve is traditionally steep, though it doesn't by definition have to be.
Point buy systems tend to provide the best character customization and a flatter power curve, usually due to unrealistically difficult advancement of top skills - perhaps my only complaint about the lovely SilCore system.
One mechanic I'm considering in d20 is to cap hit point advancement at 4th level for all characters. Since I'm not using D&D spellcasting or iterative attacks, only monsters (which are themselves very rare) and increasingly deadly power attacks will make the world more lethal, and class defense bonus protects against the latter.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
If I had to put my finger on it my reply would be the way hit points and skills are tied together.
The granular nature is another factor. I can live with the 'problems' (as I see them), but they do not stop being problems for me, then too in many ways a skill based progression seems more realistic, you can be very, very, good at one thing and not have to 'stick the extra points' someplace else.
Mind you, I like D20 a fair amount, but I like other games too, and I very much like the fact that so many companies produce stuff for the system, in some ways it reminds me of the hayday of RPGs in the early eighties, when it seemed that everybody was creating a game in their garage.
The Auld Grump
The granular nature is another factor. I can live with the 'problems' (as I see them), but they do not stop being problems for me, then too in many ways a skill based progression seems more realistic, you can be very, very, good at one thing and not have to 'stick the extra points' someplace else.
Mind you, I like D20 a fair amount, but I like other games too, and I very much like the fact that so many companies produce stuff for the system, in some ways it reminds me of the hayday of RPGs in the early eighties, when it seemed that everybody was creating a game in their garage.
The Auld Grump
MonsterMash
First Post
Actually in the BRP system in Runequest or CoC players advance in skills they have used, but not automatically as the mechanics make it easier to improve in something you have a low level of skill in rather than a high level. Improvement by learning/training is also available.
One fact due to not having levels is that even long running experienced characters still only have relatively low numbers of hit points meaning that they are less dominant in combat as a couple of good hits can still kill them, they'd just be more likely to parry or hit a less skillfull opponent, which can be seen as greater realism.
One fact due to not having levels is that even long running experienced characters still only have relatively low numbers of hit points meaning that they are less dominant in combat as a couple of good hits can still kill them, they'd just be more likely to parry or hit a less skillfull opponent, which can be seen as greater realism.
reanjr
First Post
Gundark said:
Levels represent packages of disparate, unrelated abilities (not so much as classes represent this, but I've seen very few level systems that don't work like that - Alternity's the only one I know of). These packages limit the development of your character to what the designers think is appropriate and not to what makes sense.
To me, levels are the easy way to maintain game balance. But I don't think they are necessary to do so.
In most level-based systems, the skills in which you gain experience are not linked to the skills you use to gain experience. This was best exemplified in ICE's Middle Earth Roleplaying when you could be pushed out a window, take an enormous amount of damage, gain experience due to surviving and as a result, gain a new level in your chosen class, a component of which would be learning a new language.
In D&D, sorcerors and wizards who attack people with weapons in melee combat are viewed as ridiculous comical figures because everyone knows that no matter how many blows they land, it won't alter their pathetic BAB progression. Ideal systems, for me, are those in which how you get the experience is in some way linked to what aspects of you improve. Level-based systems are structurally bad for this kind of experience.
In D&D, sorcerors and wizards who attack people with weapons in melee combat are viewed as ridiculous comical figures because everyone knows that no matter how many blows they land, it won't alter their pathetic BAB progression. Ideal systems, for me, are those in which how you get the experience is in some way linked to what aspects of you improve. Level-based systems are structurally bad for this kind of experience.
S
shurai
Guest
I prefer levelless, classless, so-called 'point-based' systems (really I prefer to call them skill-based), and I always have. Which is not to say I hate d20 and its kind; in fact I think d20 is pretty good and I play it all the time. All of my issues are matters of degree: d20 absolutely allows much of the benefit of skill-based systems.
Here's the most important reason I prefer the finer grain of skill-based systems: d20 and similar systems get in my way in terms of playing the character I want to play pretty frequently. I want to carve a sculpture out of marble and d20 says I have to lay bricks.
I'll give an example. I'm playing a cleric in a certain game. He wants more skills, so he can be good at noticing things, listening to people, and convincing people with gentle reason to do as he asks. As a healer and a compassionate soul he's highly empathic and I want to play that up. This character's willing to sacrifice to get good at those skills, so it's not like I'm asking to break play balance. He's a straight-up guy so he's not interested in stealth or sneak attacks, and he's not particularly musical. How do I do it? I'm asking for something perfectly reasonable and in straight d20 there's no way I can have it without unreasonable sacrifice.
Why should I have to live with it when in another system I can just have what I want without the sacrifice? I feel like d20 makes me adapt to the system, when it should be the system adapting to me.
Finally another Silhouette fan! : ] It's my favorite system. Would it help with your complaint to tell you that high levels of skill (3 and 4) are very difficult to attain because success rates grow exponentially with respect to the skill level? The probabilities are hard to work out, but I think it's the case that a level 3 skill is much better than a level 2 skill; I want to say that level 3 gunnery beats level 2 piloting more than half the time. So it makes sense that the costs rise exponentially too.
Also, I don't think that's unrealistic. It's seems true to me that as you study a particular subject or practice at a particular skill that you make huge progress at first but then later on you have to work hard to make lasting improvement.
I assume you meant the old d6 system here, It occurs to me that the easy way to 'suggest' that diversity is good is with in-game activity. If people are playing poorly-conceived characters, they should lose and you should tell them why they lost. It's perfectly okay to be a little mean about this stuff because they're the ones being powergaming tweakers.
Have you ever played any White Wolf system games? They have a very good character creation mechanic whereby a character can "focus" their skills in a certain area but can't put all of their points in that area. Also, as MoogleEmpMog mentioned, Silhouette does an excellent job of defeating this problem. A character can absolutely put all their eggs in one basket, but they'll pay so dearly for it that it's actually the opposite of powergaming; it weakens the character! For example, instead of improving a single skill from level 2 to 3 (from professional or veteran to elite, basically) I can instead spend the same resources on improving two skills from level 1 to level 2, and have enough left over to learn a new skill at level 1. Mog may need to correct my math here.
You'd be surprised how willing people are to pick up "Knowledge: Local (Peace River area)" when it's sufficiently cheap and getting just one more pip at shotguns is highly expensive.
Finally, I think the argument that levelless games are too easy to powergame is completely absurd. Pot to kettle, you are black!
Anyway, I want everyone to know that I really like d20 over all; it's absolutely the best class/level based game we've seen. Yet, do you notice that it's an improvement over older games in large part because it's become more like the skill-based games?
-S
Here's the most important reason I prefer the finer grain of skill-based systems: d20 and similar systems get in my way in terms of playing the character I want to play pretty frequently. I want to carve a sculpture out of marble and d20 says I have to lay bricks.
I'll give an example. I'm playing a cleric in a certain game. He wants more skills, so he can be good at noticing things, listening to people, and convincing people with gentle reason to do as he asks. As a healer and a compassionate soul he's highly empathic and I want to play that up. This character's willing to sacrifice to get good at those skills, so it's not like I'm asking to break play balance. He's a straight-up guy so he's not interested in stealth or sneak attacks, and he's not particularly musical. How do I do it? I'm asking for something perfectly reasonable and in straight d20 there's no way I can have it without unreasonable sacrifice.
Why should I have to live with it when in another system I can just have what I want without the sacrifice? I feel like d20 makes me adapt to the system, when it should be the system adapting to me.
MoogleEmpMog said:
Finally another Silhouette fan! : ] It's my favorite system. Would it help with your complaint to tell you that high levels of skill (3 and 4) are very difficult to attain because success rates grow exponentially with respect to the skill level? The probabilities are hard to work out, but I think it's the case that a level 3 skill is much better than a level 2 skill; I want to say that level 3 gunnery beats level 2 piloting more than half the time. So it makes sense that the costs rise exponentially too.
Also, I don't think that's unrealistic. It's seems true to me that as you study a particular subject or practice at a particular skill that you make huge progress at first but then later on you have to work hard to make lasting improvement.
Tyler Do'Urden said:
I assume you meant the old d6 system here, It occurs to me that the easy way to 'suggest' that diversity is good is with in-game activity. If people are playing poorly-conceived characters, they should lose and you should tell them why they lost. It's perfectly okay to be a little mean about this stuff because they're the ones being powergaming tweakers.
Have you ever played any White Wolf system games? They have a very good character creation mechanic whereby a character can "focus" their skills in a certain area but can't put all of their points in that area. Also, as MoogleEmpMog mentioned, Silhouette does an excellent job of defeating this problem. A character can absolutely put all their eggs in one basket, but they'll pay so dearly for it that it's actually the opposite of powergaming; it weakens the character! For example, instead of improving a single skill from level 2 to 3 (from professional or veteran to elite, basically) I can instead spend the same resources on improving two skills from level 1 to level 2, and have enough left over to learn a new skill at level 1. Mog may need to correct my math here.
You'd be surprised how willing people are to pick up "Knowledge: Local (Peace River area)" when it's sufficiently cheap and getting just one more pip at shotguns is highly expensive.
Finally, I think the argument that levelless games are too easy to powergame is completely absurd. Pot to kettle, you are black!
Anyway, I want everyone to know that I really like d20 over all; it's absolutely the best class/level based game we've seen. Yet, do you notice that it's an improvement over older games in large part because it's become more like the skill-based games?
-S
Astalanya
First Post
I'm in agreement with the rest; the level based approach provides a very sound, consistent means to measure the relative power of a group. It's also a clean approach. However, I've played several other systems (as I'm sure the rest of you have), like White Wolf's WoD system and BESM. What people like probably has a great deal to do with the systems they already are familiar with and an approach that suits their style of roleplaying and/or gaming.
Truth be told, I'd far prefer to extract certain elements of d20 and make them independent of level-based advancement. Skills really come to mind on this one, because of the limited number of skill points many classes possess. If someone's doing a lot of climbing in the mountains but encountering few combat scenes, it stands to reason they might improve their Climb skill or some such without the need for a new level.
Where this can become important is in campaigns where you don't level all that often. The World's Largest Dungeon has limited advancement, though I'm thinking of campaigns focused more on the outdoors or very long-term situations. Another four points available because a character has been exercising a single skill or two on a frequent basis doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Truth be told, I'd far prefer to extract certain elements of d20 and make them independent of level-based advancement. Skills really come to mind on this one, because of the limited number of skill points many classes possess. If someone's doing a lot of climbing in the mountains but encountering few combat scenes, it stands to reason they might improve their Climb skill or some such without the need for a new level.
Where this can become important is in campaigns where you don't level all that often. The World's Largest Dungeon has limited advancement, though I'm thinking of campaigns focused more on the outdoors or very long-term situations. Another four points available because a character has been exercising a single skill or two on a frequent basis doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Similar Threads
