Why must numbers go up?

[Meatboy]

Ok let's start with an assumption. (risky I know but let's do it anyway) I am going to assume that through out dnd there is a trend for numbers to get bigger.
Now in 3e it seemed that the numbers moved at different rates so as the game progressed magic types end up gods, monsters got a double dose of HP and fighters got an extra BAB.
For 4e the "math" supposedly has been fixed. But how can the heroes be heroic when everything goes up together for a net gain of zero. Where at level one the heroes take on "guards" at level 10 its the "elite royal guards of the Black Prince" and level 20 sees them taking on the "Demonic guards of the gates of Underzone!"
Or if its for skills then at level 1 they are climbing walls while at higher levels its cliffs made of elemental ice or whatever. The only difference seeming to be how big the numbers are at each step. (yes I know that they get more abilities I'll get back to that.)
This leads to "power bloat" as the numbers just start to bog down the gaming process and if disparities start to arise that then leads to things like magic item over load where one has to get the next best +X sword to keep ahead of the curve.

So this leads me to the question. If everything is getting "bigger" at roughly the same rate but nothing is changing Why have the numbers go up? Why not just design a game so that there is no or minimal "bloat" enough so that pcs can take on new challenges but the math and its associated fiddly bits stay manageable.

Anyway just some random idea. Thoughts?

 

[Morrus]

Because then you can still give the PCs easy tasks if you want to. While they may be equal to the Demonic Guards of the Gates of the Underzone, you can also have them demolish the Elite Guards of the Black Prince occasionally to let them feel heroic and powerful.

 

[amerigoV]

Its an issue with the genre, not so much D&D. Killing stuff and taking their loot leads to a big magic/gear spiral.

Fantasy is odd in that the average forces supported by a government have the much worse equipement and training than whatever character you are running at the time. Proof - it seems to be many a DM's wet dream to start a campaign with everyone in prison and no gear. Players hate it (for many reasons) because the guards have such crap gear (short swords and leather) vs. what the PCs would normally have at level. In other genres, you would at least get a friggin gun or something worthwhile if you overpowered a guard.

But I did point that same spiral out to a DM once - "hey, where did these tough guards come from? Last time we where here, they were only 2nd level warriors. Now they are 10th level fighters! What gives!?!?"

 

[ggroy]

This mentality of seeing bigger and bigger numbers, was also common in arcade video games and pinball machines with the passage of time.

If I was to design another edition of D&D, I would probably stretch out the 30 levels of earlier editions, into something like a hundred levels or more.

 

[kenmarable]

Because then you can still give the PCs easy tasks if you want to. While they may be equal to the Demonic Guards of the Gates of the Underzone, you can also have them demolish the Elite Guards of the Black Prince occasionally to let them feel heroic and powerful.

If I understand the original questions (and it's one that has occurred to me) is that say, just to use some simple numbers, at level 1, I need to roll a 15 to hit a challenging enemy, a 10 to hit a moderate enemy, and a 5 to hit an easy enemy. Then, 10 levels later, I have all sorts of bonuses added on (the "bigger numbers") but the enemy's AC/saves have also increased so that for a difficult enemy I need to roll a 15, roll a 10 for a moderate, and a 5 for an easy. At the highest epic levels of the game, all of the numbers get bigger, but ultimately (in the idealized "perfectly balanced" game that hasn't occurred but does seem to be a trend towards), I will still need the exact same rolls to hit the same levels of challenge.

The only different isn't in what I need to roll but the fact that at level 1 an elite guard is a challenge, and at level 10, it's easy. So the only relevant change isn't my numbers at all, but the difference between my level and the enemy's level.

Now, I don't think any game system has achieved this "perfect balance" but I do think that sometimes the mentality of "balance is king" can sometimes swing too far, and if it goes too far astray then your individual numbers matter less and less.

As for why the numbers get bigger, I think:

a) No game has been perfectly balanced this way yet, and I don't think anyone would like one if it were.

b) Allowing advancement, creates the ability to advance at different rates in different areas. Not only is one PC better at some tasks than other PCs (who hopefully in turn excel at tasks that the first doesn't), but you can have a range of choices of what you excel at as well as shifting over time as you level.

c) Psychologically, it feels more like progress to raise my numbers as I level as opposed to just know that Bob Captain of the Guard was hard last level, but the DM will treat him as somewhat easier this level.

d) Potentially less work on the DM. Although a system could be designed so that every level X challenge has these exact numbers, any FUN system would still have some variation and it would be up to the DM to adjust every encounter (including Bob, Captain of the Guard changing stats depending on the PCs' levels). PC leveling offloads that work to the players as they level. Bob, Captain of the Guard, can have the same stats no matter what, saving the DM some work.


So, in an abstract sense, if the game is perfectly balanced, then, I agree, the numbers don't matter at all. However, no game has hit that level and I don't think anyone would actually enjoy it nearly as much.

 

[Smoss]

I know I tried my best to address some of this when I designed my own system. I wanted heroes to improve - But also to still see a goblin as a threat.

That was mostly solved through the grim/gritty potential lethality of my system. Since hit points do not improve much, if at all, a sword hit is as deadly for beginning characters as highly skilled ones. A highly skilled character is more likely to avoid the blow of a common goblin. But they are still a serious threat (A 20 always hits... )

Smoss
-------------------
Doulairen (Doulairen)
Or directly to some system bits:
RPG System (Doulairen)

 

[ggroy]

I know I tried my best to address some of this when I designed my own system. I wanted heroes to improve - But also to still see a goblin as a threat.

That was mostly solved through the grim/gritty potential lethality of my system. Since hit points do not improve much, if at all, a sword hit is as deadly for beginning characters as highly skilled ones. A highly skilled character is more likely to avoid the blow of a common goblin. But they are still a serious threat (A 20 always hits... )

Runequest did something like this, but with no levels. Combat was relatively short and deadly, where surrendering was sometimes a viable option.

The method of character advancement was in improving the character's skills, instead of D&D style "leveling up".

 

[ExploderWizard]

Because then you can still give the PCs easy tasks if you want to. While they may be equal to the Demonic Guards of the Gates of the Underzone, you can also have them demolish the Elite Guards of the Black Prince occasionally to let them feel heroic and powerful.

You can certainly do this but in many cases picking on the little kids to flex your muscles doesn't feel very heroic. This is one of the disadvantages of the number bloat/ scaled world treadmill system.

Hit points did a fine job of power scaling in early D&D. Overall defenses improved somewhat but there was more of a feeling about meaningful improvement going on.

An orc soldier and a minotaur might both have AC 5 but there isn't any doubt about what the tougher challenge is. Even though that 1st level fighter has an equal chance to land a solid hit on either target the orc is by far an easier fight. When he gains a few levels, our fighter will be able to hit that AC 5 with greater frequency and possibly be tough enough to face that minotaur.

Non super-scaling defenses also allow lower level monsters to remain useful foes for a longer period in the campaign. Early D&D orcs in sufficient numbers are still a credible threat to a mid to high level party.

When world scaling gets to a point that two entities cannot meaningfully interact with each other due to level discrepancy, there is kind of problem going on.

 

[hexgrid]

Because for players, leveling up is fun.

 

[ggroy]

Let's look at the converse.

How receptive would rpg players be to an rpg which has does not have any character advancement? (ie. No leveling up, no skill improvement, etc ...).

Other than maybe for a one-shot evening game, such an rpg wouldn't be so interesting.