Why must numbers go up?

[ExploderWizard]

How is this not pretty much exactly how challenges scale in any system with scaling challenges?

Suppose everything you chose to do related to your language comprehension was similar to that lecture, and once even that had become easy to understand, your daily activities would then suddenly switch to something else that kept you at the 50-60% comprehensiuon level?

Repeat, repeat, repeat until you are a grey-haired old man nearing the end of your japanese speaking life and still enjoying the same rough success rate as you did when you spoke your first word. An ever scaling world means that no one gets to really become an expert at anything because the goalposts will just move to compensate for any gains in knowledge.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose everything you chose to do related to your language comprehension was similar to that lecture, and once even that had become easy to understand, your daily activities would then suddenly switch to something else that kept you at the 50-60% comprehensiuon level?

Repeat, repeat, repeat until you are a grey-haired old man nearing the end of your japanese speaking life and still enjoying the same rough success rate as you did when you spoke your first word. An ever scaling world means that no one gets to really become an expert at anything because the goalposts will just move to compensate for any gains in knowledge.

Even for the language example, that doesn't seem to work as a criticism. Let's see: first I start talking to primary school kids, with a bit of difficulty but some success, then I start talking to secondary school kids, same success rate, than to university people, then I start reading and writing poetry with difficulty but some success. What's wrong with that - with the right meaning of "success", that's my linguistic life to date - no doubt my linguistic skills today would run rings around school-kids, but except when I'm talking to my daughters and reading with them, it doesn't really come up.

Moving away from the example to the more general point - 4e seems to have as a design goal that the PCs will gradually work there way through the "story of D&D" - from fighting kobolds to fighting Orcus. The numbers getting bigger, in combination with the published monsters and adventures, is a mechanism for achieving this result.

And a different but not irrelevent point - what does 50% success rate mean in 4e? Not necessarily that I suck 50% of the time, but that I don't get what I want 50% of the time. Even my 1st level PC might be an expert fencer - it's just that the opponents are also (except the minions - there the ones I dispatch with little challenge). In that sense, a 4e "miss" is quite different from a Runequest or Rolemaster miss.

 

[Hussar]

Suppose everything you chose to do related to your language comprehension was similar to that lecture, and once even that had become easy to understand, your daily activities would then suddenly switch to something else that kept you at the 50-60% comprehensiuon level?

Repeat, repeat, repeat until you are a grey-haired old man nearing the end of your japanese speaking life and still enjoying the same rough success rate as you did when you spoke your first word. An ever scaling world means that no one gets to really become an expert at anything because the goalposts will just move to compensate for any gains in knowledge.

Umm, no. In an ever scaling world, you are constantly facing new challenges to overcome that are just about out of your reach. That's how you succeed in anything.

If you get to the point where all actions within a given activity are (pretty much) guaranteed of success, you stop improving. And, most people get bored and move onto something else.

It's only through constant challenges that anyone improves. You can play scales until your fingers bleed, but, until you actually start learning new songs, you won't improve your piano play.

See, the problem is, you're trying to say that all challenges are the same. That just because my success rate never changes, that must mean that all challenges are identical. But, that's just not true. I master a particular set of skills, then move on to the next task of attempting to master a more difficult set of skills.

Or, I stop and stop improving.

It's no different with any skill. You start with the basics and then, throughout your entire career you continuously attempt more and more difficult things. Depending on what you're doing, it is possible to master something (I can chew with my mouth closed most of the time after all. ) but, most complex activities have a never ending learning curve.

My daughter's fifty-five year old calligraphy teacher is still learning new techniques from her eighty-some year old teacher. And the older teacher says that she's still learning new stuff too.

Learning never, ever ends.

 

[Ashy]

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?

We did just that. Untold the Game | Untold possibilities!

Let us know what you think about it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Moving away from the example to the more general point - 4e seems to have as a design goal that the PCs will gradually work there way through the "story of D&D" - from fighting kobolds to fighting Orcus. The numbers getting bigger, in combination with the published monsters and adventures, is a mechanism for achieving this result.

It is a result that effectively means no meaningful change from level 1 to 30. The numbers get bigger and the monsters change thier skins but it is still a measured uphill struggle against the same types of obstacles for 30 levels. I see what the saying "the game remains the same" means now and I don't care for it.

I can get that experience from a computer game. At one time D&D offered a game of expanding and changing challenges. At a certain point, the career of an adventurer became something more than a endless slog through bigger and tougher bad guys. Followers were gained, and the opportunity to become an important political force were part of the game. Adventurers stepped into the role of leaders, led armies, and needed to deal with problems that sometimes couldn't be solved with sword or spell.

It is sad that the story of D&D now never really leaves the dungeon.

 

[Hussar]

It is a result that effectively means no meaningful change from level 1 to 30. The numbers get bigger and the monsters change thier skins but it is still a measured uphill struggle against the same types of obstacles for 30 levels. I see what the saying "the game remains the same" means now and I don't care for it.

I can get that experience from a computer game. At one time D&D offered a game of expanding and changing challenges. At a certain point, the career of an adventurer became something more than a endless slog through bigger and tougher bad guys. Followers were gained, and the opportunity to become an important political force were part of the game. Adventurers stepped into the role of leaders, led armies, and needed to deal with problems that sometimes couldn't be solved with sword or spell.

It is sad that the story of D&D now never really leaves the dungeon.

Oh come on.

"Followers were gained"? Well, only if you built a castle (for which no rules were actually given) and then, only if you were certain classes. Political forces were "part of the game"? Where?

Actually, thinking about it, you're describing BECMI D&D more than anything else. AD&D certainly didn't have you lead armies. Not unless you were making up your own rules for it (or using Battlesystem).

Be that as it may, the idea that you will face more and more difficult challenges certainly doesn't mean that you will "never really" leave the dungeon.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Oh come on.

"Followers were gained"? Well, only if you built a castle (for which no rules were actually given) and then, only if you were certain classes. Political forces were "part of the game"? Where?

Actually, thinking about it, you're describing BECMI D&D more than anything else. AD&D certainly didn't have you lead armies. Not unless you were making up your own rules for it (or using Battlesystem).

Followers were officially a part of the AD&D game. Yes you did have have to build a base of operations to attract them. Nothing forced you to build a keep or manage a barony. The option of these challenges was simply supported for those who wanted to pursue them. Some sub classes didn't have the same level of follower support as the base classes.
The Bloodstone pass module series was all about leading armies, and there were things for an adventuring party to do as well.

Be that as it may, the idea that you will face more and more difficult challenges certainly doesn't mean that you will "never really" leave the dungeon.

Not literally. You will battle across wilderness landscapes, and even through other planes of existence but if all you are doing is stabbing bigger enemies and gathering better loot then you really are still just on another dungeon level.

 

[Hussar]

The Bloodstone pass module series was all about leading armies, and there were things for an adventuring party to do as well.

One module series published about ten years into the edition's life. Yup, that's massive support. Compare that to how many "stabbing bigger enemies" type modules? Q1, S1-4, Isle of the Ape, and I'm sure there are more. Yeah, the game was ALL about managing armies and whatnot.

Sigh. No, I'm not going to do this. I've had more than my fill of edition wars. If you want to discuss the merits of various math systems for games, that's fine. You want to drag this into the abyss of pissing contests about what different editions are "about"? Count me out.

 

[The Human Target]

I agree.

I think the illusion of power gain through numbers is silly, in DnD and all other things that use it.

I'd rather levels gave you actual new "stuff" only and the numbers were pretty much static.

But a lot of people love the illusion, so I doubt it will ever go away.

 

[Meatboy]

I agree.

I think the illusion of power gain through numbers is silly, in DnD and all other things that use it.

I'd rather levels gave you actual new "stuff" only and the numbers were pretty much static.

But a lot of people love the illusion, so I doubt it will ever go away.

Yeah Pretty much. I guess with out everything surging upwards over the levels you couldn't smack down giants, demons, dragons or dieties...