Raven Crowking
First Post
I have found that, for me, having a stable world model against which the PCs grow is a better fit. Thus, average guards are Normal Men 3 at 1st level, at 10th level, and at 15th level.
RC
RC
Why must numbers go up?
- Thread starter Meatboy
- Start date
Levelling is a means of gameplay design. Learning how to implement new spells, special powers and the like. It is a way to provide new options and challenges as you go on playing the game and mastering the rules that apply while you play.
Of course, by its public consumption, levels get mastered to the point of identifying the sweet spots. At this point a new edition is needed. The more level-rules centric a game is, the more prominent this will be.
Designing a game without levels is certainly possible and perhaps preferable if you want to make a good classic game: a game that will not need new editions to sell.
While 4e has levels, it seems that the game is not level-rules centric as previous editions were. This probably means that 4e design retained levels mostly due to legacy and sacred cows reasons.
As another thread on this forum excellently suggests, the next step could rather be dungeon design; a design approach beyond character development and encounters. You certainly do not need leveling for this: a more horizontal design could apply better: optional toolbox rules that you pick and match as you see fit in your gaming session.
Of course, by its public consumption, levels get mastered to the point of identifying the sweet spots. At this point a new edition is needed. The more level-rules centric a game is, the more prominent this will be.
Designing a game without levels is certainly possible and perhaps preferable if you want to make a good classic game: a game that will not need new editions to sell.
While 4e has levels, it seems that the game is not level-rules centric as previous editions were. This probably means that 4e design retained levels mostly due to legacy and sacred cows reasons.
As another thread on this forum excellently suggests, the next step could rather be dungeon design; a design approach beyond character development and encounters. You certainly do not need leveling for this: a more horizontal design could apply better: optional toolbox rules that you pick and match as you see fit in your gaming session.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Why does leveling up/improvement have to equal a scaling world? What if leveling up granted actual improvement of abilities against real challenges. As your character gains levels he/she actually gets better at adventuring activities as a result of experience and practice.
I believe you can come to this opinion by somehow failing to see beyond the traditional game design of D&D. Yet, if you think a bit more about it, D&D so far has always had to reinvent and change parts itself to remain interesting in the markets.
Because human limits are more prevalent than human learning-conditioning.
A more realistic -if I could use this word- approach would have to be more about changing your custom limits than overcomming them in a linearly advancing fashion.
What causes problem here is trying to satisfy several conflicting goals. Different game designs come from different decisions in how to prioritize them.
Majority of people who play D&D and similar games expect and require meaningful challenges. To be meaningful, they need to be reasonably balanced - not too easy and not too hard. This is impossible to fully reconcile with real advancement in character skill in the area where it matters. You either need to scale challenges with PC abilities, thus making the advancement an illusion, or let characters become more powerful than anything they face, destroying any challenge.
Of course, one may argue that it is possible to challenge player, not character skills, to create moral dilemmas or otherwise engage PCs non-mechanically. It is surely possible and is, at least for me, at least equally fun. But to do it, you don't need a complicated mechanical system at all. When someone plays a game as crunchy as D&D, he usually expects the numbers to matter.
It is possible to have both real advancement and real challenge, but it requires the changes to be qualitative, not quantitative. You become more powerful not by increasing your numbers, but by learning how to do completely new things - and you are challenged by situations that require these new skills. The game really changes as you advance.
But a game that does this stays fun for the whole run only for people who enjoy all the types of challenge that show up on the spectrum. For this reason I don't expect any of big publishers to use this kind of design in their product. Indies are our only hope.
Majority of people who play D&D and similar games expect and require meaningful challenges. To be meaningful, they need to be reasonably balanced - not too easy and not too hard. This is impossible to fully reconcile with real advancement in character skill in the area where it matters. You either need to scale challenges with PC abilities, thus making the advancement an illusion, or let characters become more powerful than anything they face, destroying any challenge.
Of course, one may argue that it is possible to challenge player, not character skills, to create moral dilemmas or otherwise engage PCs non-mechanically. It is surely possible and is, at least for me, at least equally fun. But to do it, you don't need a complicated mechanical system at all. When someone plays a game as crunchy as D&D, he usually expects the numbers to matter.
It is possible to have both real advancement and real challenge, but it requires the changes to be qualitative, not quantitative. You become more powerful not by increasing your numbers, but by learning how to do completely new things - and you are challenged by situations that require these new skills. The game really changes as you advance.
But a game that does this stays fun for the whole run only for people who enjoy all the types of challenge that show up on the spectrum. For this reason I don't expect any of big publishers to use this kind of design in their product. Indies are our only hope.
The numbers go up since most RPGs have an element of character development. They tell a story about a character who changes over time, generally where that character becomes more powerful. The numbers going up is a psychologically and behaviorally satisfying way to tell that story.
At the same time the enemies numbers go up because it's hard to make a game where the gameplay changes drastically as your character does. Instead, if it's fun fighting guards at level 1, it will probably still be fun fighting "elite royal guards of the Black Prince" at level 10. That's just a way of making sure everyone's still playing the same game they signed up for at level 1.
As the DMG suggests, and as even your examples suggest, one way to stay true to the character development aspect is to have the scope of the threats change as the characters level up. At first the PCs face down threats that could imperil a village. Eventually they graduate into fighting things that could imperil a city, then a nation, then the world or the universe and so on.
And just because the PCs eventually fight bigger enemies doesn't mean that advancement is totally meaningless. Each individual enemy doesn't "level up" when the characters do. Instead, I'm sure most people have had the experience of facing an iconic monster, like a ogre, first when it's a major threat to the party, later when it's an average monster of their level, and lastly when it's only a minor threat, only challenging in great numbers. And, as a DM, it can be fun to have a monster that's way out of the PCs league in power chase them off just so that they can come back many levels later and kick it's butt.
At the same time the enemies numbers go up because it's hard to make a game where the gameplay changes drastically as your character does. Instead, if it's fun fighting guards at level 1, it will probably still be fun fighting "elite royal guards of the Black Prince" at level 10. That's just a way of making sure everyone's still playing the same game they signed up for at level 1.
As the DMG suggests, and as even your examples suggest, one way to stay true to the character development aspect is to have the scope of the threats change as the characters level up. At first the PCs face down threats that could imperil a village. Eventually they graduate into fighting things that could imperil a city, then a nation, then the world or the universe and so on.
And just because the PCs eventually fight bigger enemies doesn't mean that advancement is totally meaningless. Each individual enemy doesn't "level up" when the characters do. Instead, I'm sure most people have had the experience of facing an iconic monster, like a ogre, first when it's a major threat to the party, later when it's an average monster of their level, and lastly when it's only a minor threat, only challenging in great numbers. And, as a DM, it can be fun to have a monster that's way out of the PCs league in power chase them off just so that they can come back many levels later and kick it's butt.
Alaxk Knight of Galt
First Post
Stats follow this trend too. 18 is the new 10. Prior to 3E and the standard stat bonus system, a 9 Str fighter was just as effective as a 15 Str fighter. In 4E, a fighter with a 15 Str is just plain odd. Characters have gone from average Joes who slapped on their dad's old armor and grabbed a rusty sword to the pinnacle of human ability outfitted with the best gear offered for 1st level.
I'd be happy with an increase in breadth of actions rather than the damage they do.
Consider 4e powers. The higher level ones typically don't *just* do more damage. They'll have extra effects like pushing or creating zones or giving the target vulnerability.
If over the course of 30 levels, there weren't large changes in damage, hp, attack and defense, but the range of options still changed.. I'd be happy.
Personally, I don't like huge static modifiers. Why say I have +40 to attack when all my enemies have 50 AC?
There's games where character advancement does something like this, such as Runequest.
I was originally referring to a hypothetical rpg game which has no leveling up, and no opportunities for improvement of any type, such as skills, abilities, etc ...
