Wiseblood
Adventurer
Having an infinite range is an illusion when in reality it is only an excerpt of numbers relevant to a given level. These numbers still coorelate to a span of numbers found on a d20.
Why must numbers go up?
- Thread starter Meatboy
- Start date
Having an infinite range is an illusion when in reality it is only an excerpt of numbers relevant to a given level. These numbers still coorelate to a span of numbers found on a d20.
Fifth Element
Legend
In the sense that if you too abstract, any game can be described as:
Challenge arises -> Overcome challenge -> Repeat
Basically, yes.
This is not obviously true - what is Diplomacy or
Streetwise for, after all? In politics heavy games I've GMed (RM, not D&D), high
bonuses in social skills have been regarded as important - it's a high DC, for example,
to outwit Demogorgon (which happened in my last campaign).
In my games I don't really see the player/dice contrast. The players use the dice as their means of intervening in the world to resolve the conflicts that confront them. The dice can't come into play (either in combat or a skill challenge) until the players make decisions about what their PCs are doing.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Sometimes meaningful interaction between people counts for a lot more than a successful attack vs. diplomacy. Not everyone enjoys this of course.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
The argument regarding how much is player and how much is character has existed since the beginning...
A game like Amber developed some language (not enough) for allowing the player to make meaningful choices with regards to doing things he didnt really know about himself, basically gambits like presenting yourself as better than you are.. switching the arena of the conflict etc.. dragging it out so your superior 'stamina/perserverance' can dominate.. etc... it didnt do so in a real clear way at times but the idea I thought was worth something.
For me I might not have the social skills that my character does but if I have good enough language (maybe overly generic and maybe a bit general) to describe the how not just the what my character is doing it can allow me to participate in the success and failure. And gives the DM more basis for his adjustments so they arent just game numbers controlling it.
As a DM the words "How do you do it?" take on added importance.
Did that make any sense?
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Answering the question I really think it could/can be done. Even now a lot of development can occur by retraining ...
A fighter might retrain Brash strike in to Reaping Strike... going from a rash youth to a more focused veteran.
A warlord build might take the low level abilities flavored as non-combatant (lucky hero) moves and change them in to very combat flavored ones. These are doable now... and in some very real ways feel more development like independent of the advancing march of numbers.
The above represent fighting the good fight with different style and methods.. where as EWs examples might be seen as creating your own point of light... a very different arena.
Development implied in the fluff of paragon tier is exactly what ExploderWizard seemed to be talking about earlier with characters gaining rank in organizations and building fortresses etc. does it need mechanics hmmm not sure one way or the other but I might like guidelines. A warlord can have fun even with minion class allies... a build which focused on them might be fun too.
A fighter might retrain Brash strike in to Reaping Strike... going from a rash youth to a more focused veteran.
A warlord build might take the low level abilities flavored as non-combatant (lucky hero) moves and change them in to very combat flavored ones. These are doable now... and in some very real ways feel more development like independent of the advancing march of numbers.
The above represent fighting the good fight with different style and methods.. where as EWs examples might be seen as creating your own point of light... a very different arena.
Development implied in the fluff of paragon tier is exactly what ExploderWizard seemed to be talking about earlier with characters gaining rank in organizations and building fortresses etc. does it need mechanics hmmm not sure one way or the other but I might like guidelines. A warlord can have fun even with minion class allies... a build which focused on them might be fun too.
Last edited:
clearstream
(He, Him)
The random component diminishes relative to level. Level 1 with class skill and favourable stat = +6 rolling a d20. The random component represents over 3x the level component. Level 20 with class skill and favourable stat = +30 rolling a d20. The random component represents under 1x the level component.
The picture doesn't end there. Others have mentioned the horizontal expansion (more mechanical options) that accompanies the vertical expansion (bigger numbers). These expansions are entwined. The former is psychologically satisfying, the latter satisfies the twin purpose of reducing barriers to entry (less to learn up front) while protracting interest (new options and combinations of options open up).
Vertical expansion is highly efficient in translating design effort into game value. Once you have your structure and located balance within it, expanding it vertically extends play without costing a great deal of effort. It is much more effortful to integrate a new mechanic.
Ramping then answers another problem, which is the ability from a given base level to modulate challenge. You can meet a +1 foe, then a +3, then a -1, and so on: some ramping is highly desirable. I would guess the minimum desirable ramping to be from -5 to +5 in D&D level terms, meaning that 10 levels of ramping are desirable just to offer the basic game: that is, even were you to eschew the idea of numbers based advancement altogether, you still need a ramp of numbers in order to present a desirable variation of challenge. Further, you would want that same expressive range in order to let players be relatively better at some things than others.
It is in my view mistaken to view the numbers ramp as simply 'all the numbers get bigger'. There are good reasons for wanting the ramp, and essential reasons for wanting at least 10 levels of ramping.
-vk
The picture doesn't end there. Others have mentioned the horizontal expansion (more mechanical options) that accompanies the vertical expansion (bigger numbers). These expansions are entwined. The former is psychologically satisfying, the latter satisfies the twin purpose of reducing barriers to entry (less to learn up front) while protracting interest (new options and combinations of options open up).
Vertical expansion is highly efficient in translating design effort into game value. Once you have your structure and located balance within it, expanding it vertically extends play without costing a great deal of effort. It is much more effortful to integrate a new mechanic.
Ramping then answers another problem, which is the ability from a given base level to modulate challenge. You can meet a +1 foe, then a +3, then a -1, and so on: some ramping is highly desirable. I would guess the minimum desirable ramping to be from -5 to +5 in D&D level terms, meaning that 10 levels of ramping are desirable just to offer the basic game: that is, even were you to eschew the idea of numbers based advancement altogether, you still need a ramp of numbers in order to present a desirable variation of challenge. Further, you would want that same expressive range in order to let players be relatively better at some things than others.
It is in my view mistaken to view the numbers ramp as simply 'all the numbers get bigger'. There are good reasons for wanting the ramp, and essential reasons for wanting at least 10 levels of ramping.
-vk
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Only if you insist that all tasks must be possible by all actors. If you instead have a band of tasks that apply to a character of a given level, with tasks below that level becoming automatic successes, and tasks above that level still out of reach, then you have a potentially infinite range.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Some good points in there vonklaude... but lets extract features and see how
much can be extricated from the advance of the numbers.
Detail can ramp without general numeric potency changing at all. For instance one game allowed one to start out with a barely defined character then choose to allocate a general competence rating as one went along deciding at the time you needed to know ... whether the character could swim or not as an example. Ramping detail and focus at the cost of potential and versatility. .. similarly discovering disabilities are ways to differentiate... and represent a down turn in potence. In other words gaining advantage with accompanying disadvantage.. power with resposibility
Fluid capability becoming static is a similar example.. being able to shift ability around but you get fewer points but in more areas... once you make them static there localized value is compensated higher.
Increasing potence of character can be at a cost to the player narrative power and vice versi (see Fate points and Aspects - especially so called Negative Aspects). At some level the numbers ramp can be illusory.
Challenge grades need to exist but I am not sure there is a reason why the characters themselves need to change position within that map atleast it doesnt need to have a progression ramp... there position could flux without incline.
Adding in player narrative power independent of character potence.. and you get Frodo being the most important character of the story not Gandalf.
much can be extricated from the advance of the numbers.
-A true statement but the value of changing the impact of mechanical randomness could be very suspect... . As part of the argument that effects of ramping arent simplistic this is still solid - but claiming this implies a need for the ramp? (See diceless games where randomness is player induced)
The amount that Characters are differentiated could start out less and work up to more...
Detail can ramp without general numeric potency changing at all. For instance one game allowed one to start out with a barely defined character then choose to allocate a general competence rating as one went along deciding at the time you needed to know ... whether the character could swim or not as an example. Ramping detail and focus at the cost of potential and versatility. .. similarly discovering disabilities are ways to differentiate... and represent a down turn in potence. In other words gaining advantage with accompanying disadvantage.. power with resposibility
Fluid capability becoming static is a similar example.. being able to shift ability around but you get fewer points but in more areas... once you make them static there localized value is compensated higher.
Increasing potence of character can be at a cost to the player narrative power and vice versi (see Fate points and Aspects - especially so called Negative Aspects). At some level the numbers ramp can be illusory.
?Original poster is effectively questioning the value gained via the advance ... but this point seems to presume it has game value in and of itself (I probably just misunderstood).
Challenge grades need to exist but I am not sure there is a reason why the characters themselves need to change position within that map atleast it doesnt need to have a progression ramp... there position could flux without incline.
Adding in player narrative power independent of character potence.. and you get Frodo being the most important character of the story not Gandalf.
Last edited:
Ha! With slight of hand, you try to cover the half of the matter that is in fact the very problem at issue! How do you expect that to work?vonklaude said:
+30 -24 =+6.
That's six of one, half a dozen of another. You've just shifted the numbers two dozen places down the line. Same ratio.
See, if the difficulty factor were still +0, then 10 points of bonus would be superfluous. All it takes is +20 to turn 0% into 100%.
