The Forge Archives

So, if you think about it, D&D advancement (of ANY incarnation) is basically a scaling / pacing mechanic. I think we've had that discussion before, but to do a basic recap, the advancement system serves to present the illusion of escalating adversity in the SiS while keeping the overall meta-level of challenge relatively static.

And yet, nearly every game since has included such an advancement system under the mistaken notion that what it actually does is model increasing character skill.

I can't see how this is good for any game.

Being able to do the *same thing* better, when everything else gets better right along with you is the same thing as *staying the same.* Staying the same is boring.

It ocurrs to me that what an advancement systme should do to actually *be* an advancement system is focus on being able to do *new* stuff - say, gaining feats in 3e, new skills in Diablo II, etc. Advancement should open up new layers of strategy. Each inrease should give you more options to work with, more combinations to try.

A lot of games have this type of "get new cool stuff" mechanics tacked on as an apparent afterthought. I'd like to see an advancement system where the whole point is to get new kewelness.

Any ideas what this kewelness could represent, and how this could be achieved mechanically? Frex, what player behavior should trigger an increase in "kewelness options?"

Well, I liked the L5R approach, in which the new stuff you could do were essentially special rules exemptions or applications.  This mean they had wide applicability rather than just being on the same scale as the opposition.  Sure this game still expects the opposition to climb in accordance with the players, but to a lesser extent.  I still liked the rather more qualitatove than quantitative aspects of this development system.

But more broadly, I think this is one of the aspects of social advancement largely missing from RPG.  Mostly in real life, you get access to more kewelness and a broader range of activity by achieving rank and social authority.  IMO, the concentration on personal skills in advancement mechanics has distracted appropriate attention from this aspect.

I generally agree.  Many advancement systems are largely illusory.  However even in old D&D and AD&D there was exception... magic, especially wizards (or what is now called arcane magic).  Like D&D 3's feats and contracycle's cited L5R approach, each spell basically acted as its own rule or rule exception.  All the strategic options this opened up transformed the class from the least powerful at low levels to the most powerful at high.  A fighter could fight better, a thief could thieve better, a high level magic user was a qualitatively different thing than a lower level one.

The cleric is a trickier case as much of its magic is simply a more powerful version of something that it could do at low levels... Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds, etc... but on the other hand they had stuff like Miracle as well.

I will also note that Fighters and Thieves actually did have a huge area of rules exception based mechanics, it was the equipment, particularly magical equipment.

This is typically one area where minimalist (short, generic, vanilla) gamist games come up lacking.  They usually have an advancement system like you describe where characters become better at what they do, but since a GM will typically advance the opposition as well, they are really no better than they were and there are no new strategic/tactical options like you would have with a robust feat or spell system there is really no new interest for a gamist player.

One way to possibly reward players with new options would be to scrap simple numerical advancement entirely and only have rules exception based advancement.  Instead of going from a Thievery 1 to Theivery 5 over time you would gain the feats Quick Hands, Stealthy Movement, Hands Like Glue, etc.  These feats would not simply be of the "add +4 to your roll" variety, but would actually change the way the mechanics are handled for those tasks.

This is probably all very highly gamist though, but I think it would appeal to a generation brought up on M:TG and its ilk.  This is pretty much the way CCGs work.

Which makes me wonder why there haven't been more CCG/RPG crossovers attempted.

Regards,
Mark

Some problems:

- arent quite a lot of "kewl powers" going to cancel each other out? Powerful Character gets Super-Stealth-Attack...Powerful Bad Guy gets Super Alertness... = Stalemate.

- an issue with expanding the range of strategies/powers etc. is that its going to increase the GM's job exponentially. You the player only have to figure out good strategies for your character.: the GM has to think up good strategies for a panoply of opponents. Im not sure how satisfied my inner Gamist would be if I realised I hadnt beaten the BBEG through my cunning, but because the GM hadnt realised that BBEG's powers X,Y, and Z would nix my powers A,B and C.

Quote from: Paganini
Being able to do the *same thing* better, when everything else gets better right along with you is the same thing as *staying the same.* Staying the same is boring.

I think this is the difference between theory and practice. Fighting a dragon and fighting 5 orks is "the same thing"--you roll dice, you lose hitpoints, you declare attacks. Maybe you move.

But a first level party can't (IIRC) take on a dragon (even a young one--and while the youngest dragon might be in reach of a lowish level party certainly killing a hatchling dragon isn't the same dramatically as taking on an adult one).

A high level party can--and that's, IME, extra drama.

Now: clearly the game can be *run* in such a way as to equalize all conflicts--but that can happen with any advancement system. The fact is, in D&D there are different monsters, lower levels of the dungeon, etc. The game, IME, *does* change. First we fought orks. Now we fight umberhulks.

To some people that may not be a whit of difference.

To some people it is. If you take on three orks and win, you collect a bounty. If you and your friends stand shoulder to shoulder at the end of a great bridge and hold an entire advancing dark army until the calvary arrives then the non-combat world-reaction (you become a legend) is going to be much different.

-Marco

Quote from: NN- arent quite a lot of "kewl powers" going to cancel each other out? Powerful Character gets Super-Stealth-Attack...Powerful Bad Guy gets Super Alertness... = Stalemate.

That is why that rules exceptions have to be something more elaborate than a simple "+10 To Attack When Capturing Oponent By Surprise" or "+10 To Defense When Normally Caught By Surprise."  One way that this can be done for a combat based game is by having robust movement and postioning rules and avoid tying these feats to simple task resolution.  One of the dangers of this is that you come up with something that is only marginally an RPG.

However, how do you model this for non-combat situations?  One way might be to get away from task resolution and orient these rules exceptions to conflict resolution.  If anyone could recommend some good gamist conflict resolution mechanics, I would be interested in looking at them.  Another way would be to have a strong resource management aspect with the rules exceptions oriented around movement and use of the resources being managed.

A good model would be to take something like Hero Wars/Quest, but instead of having traits be simple numerical bases to roll under, have the traits perform how you can use and manage your hero points.  It would be like a bunch of card sharks playing poker, but each playing with a different rule set, but with a system in place for determining how these different rule sets interact.

It could be crazily complicated, but really no more than D&D where each rule/feat/piece of equipment is really a different rule.  It would also satisfy those who like HeroWars/Quest but prefered the traits be a bit crunchier and a bit more suited to gamist play.

As for the problem of ABC beating XYZ, this problem is pretty prevalent in most gamist oriented RPGs.  ("Geeze, you really should have thought to have a Druid on this adventure.") And it is particularly a problem in D&D 3.5 with all its rules for equipment materials ("The GM only thew the Werewolves against us because we didn't bring any cold iron bolts with us.")

One way to actually incorporate more player skill into the game is to have either the intricate position rules or the resource management idea I mentioned earlier.   Another would be to have a bluffing based mechanic.  I am sure that you have seen the fifty or so TV versions of Texas Hold 'Em playing on any number of cable channels recently.   How you could apply bluffing directly to an RPG I am not sure?  Any examples?  Again, I think the HeroWars/HeroQuest engine would be a great place to integrate it since it is basically a gambling mechanic to begin with.

Whether there is any market for any of these ideas is a different question entirely, I suspect there might be... they certainly sound interesting to me.

Regards,
Mark

Quote from: Marco
I think this is the difference between theory and practice. Fighting a dragon and fighting 5 orks is "the same thing"--you roll dice, you lose hitpoints, you declare attacks. Maybe you move.

But a first level party can't (IIRC) take on a dragon (even a young one--and while the youngest dragon might be in reach of a lowish level party certainly killing a hatchling dragon isn't the same dramatically as taking on an adult one).

A high level party can--and that's, IME, extra drama.

My question is if it is such better drama (and I take that to mean better play in your estimation, I could be wrong), why not just start the game at a high level and be out dispatching marauding Dragons and holding back  an army of Orcs singlehandedly.

As a gamist, I am not sure that it makes much difference to me whether I am fighting a few orcs or a dragon if the strategies available to me or the GM are the same for either.  Fighting a dragon should poise unique challenges beyond simply having a ton more hit points.

We are clearly getting deep into GNS territory here.  I am wondering if we need to split off a branch in the GNS forum?

More Later,
Mark

Quote from: Mark Johnson

My question is if it is such better drama (and I take that to mean better play in your estimation, I could be wrong), why not just start the game at a high level and be out dispatching marauding Dragons and holding back  an army of Orcs singlehandedly.

Well, just "different." Better is a matter of taste (yes, I consider a build-up of characters from defenders of the local tavern to defenders of the world a viable and enjoyable potential story-arc).

Exalted *does* start you as a high-level character. If you want to do that, no problems!

I'm just questioning the idea that there's "no difference" between high level and low-level play. I think there clearly is if one counts the in-game descriptions and in-game ramifications of events as important.

-Marco

This:

Quote from: NN
- arent quite a lot of "kewl powers" going to cancel each other out? Powerful Character gets Super-Stealth-Attack...Powerful Bad Guy gets Super Alertness... = Stalemate.

Is not exactly what I had in mind. "Kewel Powerz" probably wasn't the best way for me to put it. What I'm saying is this:

If characters only get better at what they already do, then the number of options that the player has to work with stays the same. In BD&D, no matter how many hit points a fighter has, no matter how good is sword, armor, etc., are, he always has the same basic set of options - attack, run for it, drink a potion, etc.

In the context of this discussion, a "kewelness" is anything that improves character effectiveness by giving the player more options to choose from, rather than just increasing the success chance on existing options.

So, it doesn't have to be a DragonBallZ "Mega Moon Blaster Attack" or anything like that. In a nutshell, my proposed advancement system increases character effectiveness by giving the player more scope for creativity by providing more options as the character progresses.

Quote
- an issue with expanding the range of strategies/powers etc. is that its going to increase the GM's job exponentially. You the player only have to figure out good strategies for your character.: the GM has to think up good strategies for a panoply of opponents. Im not sure how satisfied my inner Gamist would be if I realised I hadnt beaten the BBEG through my cunning, but because the GM hadnt realised that BBEG's powers X,Y, and Z would nix my powers A,B and C.

That is a good point. I haven't really been considering that aspect of things. What do you think of this:

What I'm proposing really already exists in the form of a D&D game where every "human" character is a magic-user - NPC and PC alike. How do you feel about the ammount of work required for a GM to successfully play magic-using NPCs in D&D, combining spells, and so on?

Marco:

Yes. I'm talking purely from a game mechanis standpoint. The challenge for the players at the meta level is (about) the same for a high level party fighting a dangerous enemy as it is for a low level party fighting a wuss.

In other words, you're restating my point: the in-game trappings have changed; they've scaled up. But mechanically, but mechanically everything is still pretty much the same.

Diablo I is a great example of this kind of thing at it's purest: fighting a Skeleton with your level 1 Fighter is just about the same as fighting Burning Dead Captains with your Level 10 Fighter.

Your Level 10 Fighter sure is a lot cooler than his Level 1 self - he's got roxor armor, and a bog sword, and a lot of hit points - but the experience of fighting the Burning Dead Captain is pretty much identical to the experience of fighting the Skeleton way back when. It takes just about as long to kill the Burning Dead Captain as it did to kill the Skeleton. The only difference is that the Burning Dead Captain is red instead of white.

If you step back and look at it objectively, the game is trying to sucker you into thinking you've accomplished something when, actually, everything is the same as it ever was.

Mark:

Not ignoring you, I just don't have anything to add to your good ideas. Thanks for your input. Keep it coming! :)

Hi Nathan,

There's no question that a person might look a high-level battle where more damage was dealt and taken than "ever before" and declare it the most 'bad-ass battle EVAR'--even when, percentage wise, it's identical to the first low-level battle he faced.

But in a way he's right: the starting characters didn't throw around that magnitude of fire power (of course if he declares the high-level batte *tougher* then what you are saying is true, IMO--he's making a mistake or he needs to define his terms to be completely clear).

But I don't square this:

Quote
Yes. I'm talking purely from a game mechanis standpoint. The challenge for the players at the meta level is (about) the same for a high level party fighting a dangerous enemy as it is for a low level party fighting a wuss.

(Emphasis added)

with this:

Quote from: Paganini
If you step back and look at it objectively, the game is trying to sucker you into thinking you've accomplished something when, actually, everything is the same as it ever was.

(Emphasis added)

I think that's a disconnect somewhere: Game mechanics don't 'try to sucker' anyone, IME. I think your are shifting from meta-game to in-character without acknowledging it.

Player1 (IC): "Wow ... we just killed a DRAGON!" (accomplishment!)

-- context shifts to meta-game --

Player 2 (Meta-game): "Dude, that combat took just as long as the three orks we killed and did, percentage wise, exactly as much damage." (same as it ever was.)

But really, both players are right. No one is decieved.

Additional thought: Character power (effectiveness) is illusory if the GM is free to assign foes/challenges as he or she sees fit. Nobilis is a great example of that: tons of power, heavy opposition. This isn't news though--the "power" of Nobilis characters is seen in their relation to SiS just as a high-level AD&D character's is (in fact, it may be less so in AD&D: high level characters can decide to "take a day off" and go power-tripping through the first-level forrest and clear it out of monsters. Most games don't contain a concept of a first-level forest for them to take advantage of in that way).

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
But I don't square this:

Quote
Yes. I'm talking purely from a game mechanis standpoint. The challenge for the players at the meta level is (about) the same for a high level party fighting a dangerous enemy as it is for a low level party fighting a wuss.

(Emphasis added)

with this:

Quote from: Paganini
If you step back and look at it objectively, the game is trying to sucker you into thinking you've accomplished something when, actually, everything is the same as it ever was.

(Emphasis added)

I think that's a disconnect somewhere: Game mechanics don't 'try to sucker' anyone, IME. I think your are shifting from meta-game to in-character without acknowledging it.

Nah, just using an expression. I'm not being quite as carefull with my phraseology here as I am in deep theory discussions. LIke I said, we've covered the whole "advancement = scaling" thing before in other threads, so I didn't see the need to lay it out super clearly.

My point:

Quote
Player1 (IC): "Wow ... we just killed a DRAGON!" (accomplishment!)

-- context shifts to meta-game --

Player 2 (Meta-game): "Dude, that combat took just as long as the three orks we killed and did, percentage wise, exactly as much damage." (same as it ever was.)

But really, both players are right. No one is decieved.

Sure. But, your first statement is "Wow... we just killed a DRAGON!" Well, sure, in the SiS you killed a dragon. But, mechancially, no. You "killed" a set of numbers that defines a probabilistic relationship.

So, that's what I was talking about with the "suckering" and "game mechanics" stuff. The trappings of the game lead you to believe that you've done something kewel and special - you've killed a whole dragon! But, mechanically, killing the dragon was the same experience as killing the orc.  The responsibility actually falls to the player to stay interested by generating his own sense of involvement and progression - "wow, we were killing orcs, but now we're doing dragons!"  He gets no help from the advancement mechanics, because functionally, killing dragons now is identical to killing orcs back then.

So, basically, I don't disagree with you. You're just talking about *how people feel about the SiS,* whereas I'm only talking about *how the mechanics operate.*

White Wolf games have been doing this - modeling increased character ability with special rules instead of numerical smokescreen improvement - for years now. Just look at Vampire, or Mage, or for an extreme example, Exalted, where the numbers are essentially there only to pace your acquisition and use of exception-based powers (Charms), which abound.

Quote from: PaganiniA lot of games have this type of "get new cool stuff" mechanics tacked on as an apparent afterthought. I'd like to see an advancement system where the whole point is to get new kewelness.

Any ideas what this kewelness could represent, and how this could be achieved mechanically? Frex, what player behavior should trigger an increase in "kewelness options?"

1) I'm going to focus on this part for my response.
2) I'm citing a specific game example below (Final Fantasy X-2) because console RPGs change their systems from game to game, even within the same franchise; no blanket statements such as "look at console RPGs" is really applicable here.

So: Final Fantasy X-2. RPG for the Playstation 2 console.

The base system for power-up advancement is pretty simple: kill an enemy, and gain a flat number of Experience Points from that enemy. Get enough XP and you get another Character Level. At every level your stats - things like Attack, Defense, Magic, Luck, HP - go up a few points (some a few more, some a few less, depending on the character and the stat).

Except that's just sort of the building block; where the system -really- shines are it's "dresspheres"; in other games in the FF franchise this is the "job system", and tabletop players would simply refer to them as classes.

The really fun thing about them, however, is that you build up a pool of these classes over the course of the game (you find them as items), and you can then equip them and change between them, even in battle; so if you need to use your Alchemist abilities for the first few rounds, then switch to Warrior, then hop over to Black Mage for a finale attack, you can do that.

This gets to the point this way: each of the jobs is made up of at least 16 different abilities (some of the jobs have additional sub-sets of abilities). You gain abilities by meeting an Ability Point requirement for each one; you gain AP by defeating enemies and by using the abilities you've already unlocked. Here's a sample from the Gunner class:


* Attack                  * Trigger Happy
^ Cheap Shot              ^ Target MP
^ Scattershot             o Darkproof
The command menu for this character in battle would look something like:

Attack
Trigger Happy
Gunner Abilities
    > Cheap Shot
    > Target MP
    > Scattershot


* abilities are command abilities; these are the menu commands you can do in a battle. The ^ abilities are also command abilities, but require MP to use (which is usually not a huge pool; you might get off half a dozen mid-size abilities before needing to recharge it with something). Darkproof is a constant-effect ability and prevents the character from being afflicted with the Darkness effect (which reduces accuracy).

Cheap Shot does some damage no matter what the enemy's defense is; Target MP damages the enemy's MP pool instead of their HP; and Scattershot hits all enemies at once.

You don't -need- any of these abilities to finish the game; smart playing and reliance on a few basic attacks and items can get you through the whole thing, especially if you're willing to kill a lot of mindless stuff to build up your base stats. I think it might be what you were looking for in an "advancement for advancement's sake", though. There are 17 classes, and of those, the Gun Mage has a seperate set of 16 learned abilities and each character has their own "super-class" that has three seperate parts, each with a set of 16 unique abilities.

I think X-2 is also a compelling example for this because it eschews the normal equipment paradigm; each character (of which there are three total) can equip, at maximum, two accessories. So there's no questing for Excalibur or the Armor of God; mostly just items that will protect you a little, let you do some extra damage, or allow you to gain XP/AP faster.

So really, the reason to power up your classes is just to be able to do more funky attacks and be able to use different strategies in battle. Does this sound about right, Nathan? If it's not, maybe it'll help you define what you mean more... not sure where else you could be going with this. =/

While some of the D&D mechanics are scale-invariant, not all of them are.  In fact, in my
experience, D&D strategy does change qualitatively as characters advance.  

I play in three D&D 3.5 campaigns.  The first uses house rules that slows advancement;
in approximately 50 sessions over 3 years (250 hours)
we've gone from 1'st to currently 5-8'th level.  I play a wizard, who's recently decided to multiclass into cleric.  (One reason for
the change is that with slow advancement, I did want to mess around with strategy a bit more.   Fireballing at first sight had become my default.  So I adopted a code vs. fireballs as part of my religious experience, and beefed up on non-lethal spells).  The second campaign is a very light romp, I believe using standard rules but being generous with experience.  In about 14 sessions (70 hours), we've gone from 1st to 9-10'th level.   I
play a cleric.  I also run a game, where in about 14 sessions (70 hours) over a year, the characters now range from 4th to 7th level.   So I don't have experience with really high level games.  Also, some of the strategy adjustment may be due to the switch from 3.0
to 3.5.   However, I've certainly noticed differences in strategy as characters advance.

1.  Increased specialization:  In low-level games,   the difference between character classes is less pronounced.  My wizard would often run out of spells and take out his crossbow.    Sure, he was about 20% less likely to hit than the fighter and did half as
much damage.  But how many hit points does a goblin have, anyway?  A cleric was almost as buff as a fighter.  With heavy armor, he could get in the front ranks and hold off the foe for a while.  Or the wizard could get a Shield on top of his Mage Armor, and be almost invulnerable for a few minutes.   Now, we face foes with hundreds of hit points.
A single attack with +3 to hit doing a  d4-1 is laughable,
when the fighter has two or three attacks doing twenty or more points per attack.  And I
almost never run out of spells, anyway.  And if I did, then I'd just go to my belt of wands.

2.  Threat assessment.   At low-levels, there are just two threat levels to consider:
All out fight, and run away.  At mid levels, it is crucial to take an adversary's measure
exactly.  Overestimate a foe, and you use your high-level spells up leaving you as the real boss's luncheon selection.  Underestimate a foe, and you are just breakfast.  

3.  Movement and positioning:  In low-level D&D, movement and positioning are the key strategic elements.  The whole tide of battle is determined by flanking and attacks of opportunity.  At mid-levels, there are enormous numbers of ways of repositioning yourself, and avoiding attacks of opportunity.  For example, you almost never miss when
casting defensively, so even if you've got your spellcaster in a bad position, you rarely have a spell interrupted.  At mid-levels, it matters much more WHAT elements are on the battlefield (spell effects, summoned creatures, etc.) than precisely where they are.

4.  Offense vs. defense.   In low-level D&D, defense is high relative to offense.  As you increase level, offense increases much more than defense, with the exception of hit points and healing.  At low levels, good armor and defensive spells mean you can avoid being hit at all.  At mid-levels, you will be hit if you are within striking range; a high AC can help you avoid secondary attacks at best.  (A cleric with good armor will often be at AC
19 at first level, whereas the creatures will be +1 or 2 to hit, so will only get hit 20%.
A shield of faith spell cuts that to 10%.  At sixth level, the armor might be +2, the shield
of faith might give +3, and you might have one or two more AC from other spells,
but that means your AC is 26, while the creatures have two +14 to hit attacks, each hitting about half the time.)  

5.  Recovery time.  At low-levels, it is easy to use up spells and healing.  After even a minor battle, you might need to rest a full day before being fit for duty, which usually means a full-scale retreat.   Ability drain or other magical attacks can cripple the whole group for days.   After you've got a wand of CLW and know lesser restoration,
you rarely are at less than full hit points and ability scores except during a battle.  (You can still run out of your tough spells.)  

6.  Options.  Options increase exponentially as you go up level.  At first level, you are
preparing  three first level spells from a  menu of 8 for wizards or 20 for clerics.  
By sixth level, you prepare three third level spells from a list of 8, four second level
spells from a list of 12, and five first level spells from a list of maybe 30.  You also
are making/buying magic items.  I've found I have to do most of the spell choices out of game, and have standard lists of spells for different occasions (travelling spells, city spells, exploring ruins spells, etc.)  or get totally bogged down.  This may be especially true for wizards, but fighters also get a huge number of feats,  any subset of which might apply to any particular attack.  Fighters seem to need to be adept accountants to fight
strategically (or just to figure out their current attack bonuses.)  

Russell

Quote from: PaganiniAny ideas what this kewelness could represent, and how this could be achieved mechanically? Frex, what player behavior should trigger an increase in "kewelness options?"

With Donjon, the coolness is represented by more abilities and items. Each of these resources gives the player another avenue to roll and then get Donjon facts. The more of these resources, the greater your flexibility in inserting a proposed event (followed by rolling and hoping for successes).

The proper Donjon behavior, using facts and successes to defeat monsters, traps and puzzles, is encouraged through level gain, which gives a player more abilities (along with other perks, like more points, magic words and rendering an item "permanent").