Why must numbers go up?

[TarionzCousin]

Perhaps we should use a brand-new numbering system. Start at 10. As you get better, your number gets lower, until it is the best it can be at -10.

What?

 

[mhensley]

Strangely enough, I was just looking at this issue with regard to how Basic D&D was designed. It does pretty much the opposite of 4e- many of the stats are almost static. Look at AC modifiers for some common foes at different levels-

hd/name/AC mod
<1 kobold +2
<1 goblin +3
1 orc +3
1 hobgoblin +3
2 lizardman +4
3 bugbear +4
4 ogre +4
5 displacer beast +5
6 troll +5
8 hill giant +5

With AC's being so slow to advance, fighters really do hit more often as they level up and get magic weapons.

 

[ashockney]

The E6 movement explores this concept in interesting ways.

The basis of the question they asked is "how do you extend that sweet spot" where the math all seems to work.

I know one of the things I miss from 1e D&D is the ability for a group of 1st level players to take on the 7th level guard, and win! Or for a party of 7th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st level characters to adventure together, and actually HAVE something to do of value in a conflict/encounter. This was due, in part, because the total range of armor classes in 1e was from 10 to -10, which is only a 20 point range. Anyone could hit anyone, at least in the beginning.

So, I would argue that it is worth asking the question, "how much value dos doing all the extra math add to the enjoyment of the game?"

I think it is worth mentioning that the designers add value to their roles, with the need for someone to be able to translate and adjuicate all that math.

 

[Mark]

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Ariosto again."

Done and done.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

I played in a campaign with an RPG that effectively had almost no mechanical character advancement (it was allowed within the system, but we created characters that were pretty much where we wanted them, rather than "beginning" characters).* The campaign lasted about 6-8 years of every Saturday night, only missing maybe a dozen Saturday nights over that time.

If the campaign is interesting and there is character development, then systemic advancement isn't mandatory.

* The game was a variation of Melanda, Land of Mystery. We all got to choose our skills, within reason, and were very competent characters. We gained, and lost, magic items over time and occasionally magical abilities. In general, though, our base statistics were pretty much the same throughout the campaign.

 

[Meatboy]

First of a big thanks to all the people who have responded. I thought that this was something interesting to ponder and discuss so I am glad to have stirred up some lively discourse.

Now as for actual increases I must admit that I am for character advancement. But I am more of the idea, as has been said earlier, of the more "static" type world where by characters advance but the world or area at large remains mostly unchanged, but still giving the characters new challenges to overcome. I guess I am more and advocate of gritty games than heroic style.

It was stated earlier in the thread that in 4e players didn't "just" do more damage with their powers but that they also gained more effects as they gained levels. I have a bit of a beef with that about 4e or 3e in general when they have stuff that is almost exactly the same, either in powers or spells, but they have different levels and then just bump up the damage. I feel that fireball and delayed blast fireball were pretty bad offenders for this in 3e so were sleep and deep slumber.

I think for me it has something to do with the whole magic item dependency. Which seems to haunt games, DnD in particular. I just would like to be able to do cool things but not always have to chalk it up to the new +X thingamawhatsit of smiting that I recently received... but its even worse when I have to ditch that a few levels later just so that I can grab the next one so I can keep pace.

 

[BrokeAndDrive]

Because this isn't a freaking FPS.

 

[Monkey Boy]

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.

I might be wrong but I don't think your characters improve in Traveller beyond the money, ship upgrades and equipment gained. That seems to be a fun and interesting RPG with a strong following.

So yes I think you can have a RPG that doesn't include a form of advancement and still have an ongoing campaign that's lots of fun.

** Just read the thread and seen that Traveller has been mentioned a number of times. **

 

[Ariosto]

With AC's being so slow to advance, fighters really do hit more often as they level up and get magic weapons.

It's not even really a matter of "ACs advancing" all the time.

In OD&D with Greyhawk, a just-rolled first-level fighter's effective AC could range from 9 (no armor) to -2 (plate armor and shield, 4-point bonus for dexterity 18). In the later Basic games, an 18 dexterity gives just a +3 bonus. In Advanced, unarmored is AC 10 (because ring and studded got wedged in the middle, displacing leather & shield from the AC 6 position). Plate armor is too expensive for a 1st-level character, so the likely best is AC -1. That's still an 11-point range, as in OD&D with Supp. I.



Counting AC 9 as "0" (in keeping with your post above, and with the MM's basis), our top first-level fighter's AC -1 would be +10. With no dexterity bonus, that (pretty typical) panoply of scale or banded armor with shield would be +6. ACs for monsters in the original D&D set all ranged from +0 to +7.

Look at these examples from the 1st MM:

Demogorgon +17
Dispater +11
24 HD diplodocus +3
21 HD Bahamut +12
20 HD plesiosaurus +2
18 HD tyrannosaurus rex +4
16 HD Tiamat +9
15 HD purple worm +3
14 HD baluchitherium +4
13 HD pit fiend +12
12 HD giant slug +1
12 HD ki-rin +14
11 HD ice devil +13
10 to 11 HD elephant +3
10 HD efreeti +8
10 HD lurker above +3
9 HD will-o-the-wisp +17
7 to 10 HD mimic +2
7+7 HD xorn +11
8 HD night hag +0
7 HD rakshasa +13
6+3 HD minotaur +3
5+5 HD horned devil +14
5 HD giant skunk +2
5 HD rust monster +7
4+4 HD yeti +3
4 HD ghast +5
3 HD quasit +7
2 HD giant ant +6
2 HD zombie +1
1/2 HD pixie (invisible) +8

 

[AllisterH]

It was stated earlier in the thread that in 4e players didn't "just" do more damage with their powers but that they also gained more effects as they gained levels. I have a bit of a beef with that about 4e or 3e in general when they have stuff that is almost exactly the same, either in powers or spells, but they have different levels and then just bump up the damage. I feel that fireball and delayed blast fireball were pretty bad offenders for this in 3e so were sleep and deep slumber.

.

That's actually kind of funny.

In 2e, they instituted a damage cap on fireball so it could not exceed 10d6. The reason being it was found that the 3rd level spell was JUST TOO GOOD in pre 2e since thanks to increasing numbers, it was "better" to use fireball than a higher level spell...