Character Improvement, taken for granted?

[Andrew Martin]

It is my observation (and certainly a debatable one) that "normal" folks who play most any RPG desire some mechanics to improve their characters. It's just taken for granted. You play. You get experience. Your character gets better/tougher/more powerz/whatever. Further, I think there is a desire in many role-players to enjoy prolonged campaigns, in which they play a single character for a prolonged time, ever increasing his effectiveness.

I think in many cases this desire for advancement is simply due to many conventional RPGs drastically limiting character power, and so "forcing" players into a gamist mode of play, so that they can get a competent character who reliably does what the player wants, instead of looking like a stumbling fool. :) I found it illuminating converting conventional RPGs to Fudge, and seeing how weak beginning characters were! So it's really the "whiff" factor or fear of failure, deprotagonisation of the PC that drives this desire for constant improvement, I feel.

When I (and my fellow players) repeatedly used my second game system (Swift) that only had two outcomes for skill/attribute rolls, success (often) and success with difficulties (infrequent), I was amazed at the difference in player behaviour. They relaxed and did interesting things, acted like heroes (as their characters) and so on. There was virtually no demand from the players for character advancement (increased character power), beyond that generated by the actions of the characters (studying a new language, learning a new magic spell book and so on).

[contracycle]

I think there may be a link between the Campbellian myth, the issue over inititiations discussed elsewhere, and the age of most RPG players when they start.  To me, it seemed as an adolescent player, that to some extent we were RPing our development into competent adults.  Here I see the Anima anology; the heroes grow quickly because like adolescents, their rate of physical developement is much higher than that of the incumbent adults in any social office - warband, working group, council, whatever.  There comes a point, however, at which the student supercedes the master - this I think is the Anime crux at which the new character defeats the more established/experienced character.  Compare with the turn over of late-teen/early-adult sports stars.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

If you're saying what I think you're saying, it sounds right to me.  Isn't that helpful?  :)

Spiffy :)

I think you're saying that in a hero-quest, not everybody can be the hero.

I think that what I'm saying is that not all games, either the actual published text or the individual group, are playing the hero-quest.

Actually, I think that character advancement has made pinball out of the hero-quest. Let's see if I can get *this* concept across.

You can make a pinball game out of anything. Literally. The things is that a pinball game will, out of necessity convert the elements of the concept into abstractions, sometimes gross abstraction, sometimes not. The effect is it still retains some of the flavor of the concept, but it has been abstracted into something less meaningful than the original concept and not everyone who plays the game will understand the full depth of the concept or those elements. I could see a soap opera pinball game where the mutliple romantic entanglements has been reduced to a set of drop targets.

So what I mean is, character advancement might have been based on or inspired by the hero-quest originally (who knows. Ask Gygax) but it had turned a concept of myth and converted it into a set of mechanics, into Game Rules. Many roleplayers only know character advancement as Game Rules, only those familiar with the hero-quest or campell's work will notice the similarities and thing, oh, character advancement is like the hero-quest, or whatever. But it's not. It is part of converting that idea into Game Rules so that a player can wind up doing something similar to the hero-quest in play without ever really understanding or necessarily wanting it.

When they make a movie, there are those who prefer the book to the movie and there are those who prefer the video game cartridge to the movie. I guess. (props to Don Simpson)

Did I make sense?

[clehrich]

Jack,

Now I'm entirely in agreement.  The absorption of the Campbellian hero-quest into RPGs has, I think, a tremendous impact on the idea of character development as power-up.  To effect this, the traditional model was to turn it into a pinball game, as you say --- to extrapolate everything as points and flashing lights.  But the effect, as you say, is that you have a system which bears no relation to the hero-quest unless you already know that it's supposed to be similar.

Still, I think rather than necessarily moving towards setting up to do the hero-quest "right," we ought to recognize the model for what it is and set it aside when it's not necessary --- along with power-ups and other artefacts of confused modeling.

[xiombarg]

I think you're saying that in a hero-quest, not everybody can be the hero.  You have to have the Guide (Obi-Wan, for example), and so forth.  So you can't try to make the Guide go through the whole hero-quest thing, or it all falls apart.  You've got to choose one PC to be the hero, and let everyone else keep the story in the air.

Actually, you could hang an interesting game on that. Decide on Setting and Color for your hero quest. Everyone picks a Campbellian archetype important in the Hero Quest, including one (and only one) Hero. Then, the mechanics (in terms of rewards and improvement) for each player are DIFFERENT, according to archetype. The Hero is rewarded by increased effectiveness. The Guide is pretty effective to begin with, and is rewarded with narrative control -- the advice he gives can be "made to be true" through some metagame mechanic. (Also, once during the story the Guide can totally transform when defending the Hero against great evil, like Obi-Wan dying and getting a nifty ghost body, or Gandalf becoming Gandalf the White.)

[xiombarg]

When I (and my fellow players) repeatedly used my second game system (Swift) that only had two outcomes for skill/attribute rolls, success (often) and success with difficulties (infrequent), I was amazed at the difference in player behaviour. They relaxed and did interesting things, acted like heroes (as their characters) and so on. There was virtually no demand from the players for character advancement (increased character power), beyond that generated by the actions of the characters (studying a new language, learning a new magic spell book and so on).

To add a datapoint, I experienced this as well over several sessions of my early Forge-inspired design, Success. (Ironically, this remains my design that's gotten the most playtesting so far...)

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Still, I think rather than necessarily moving towards setting up to do the hero-quest "right," we ought to recognize the model for what it is and set it aside when it's not necessary --- along with power-ups and other artefacts of confused modeling.

Naturally. It all depends on what the game is about. If it is to be the hero quest, it should in some way or other reflect the hero quest. If not, then it should reflect what it is.

The problem is derivative design. I think I'm not well liked over on the RPGnet Art of Game Design forum because every now and again I throw in a discouraging word at people basically effecting derivative design, making assumptions of what "should" be in an RPG and never questioning them. I'll bet that if one were to hold down some of these armchair designers and threaten them with bodily harm unless they told the truth, they would say their designs have things like character advancement, attribute + skill mechanics, initiative, roll to hit and roll to damage, and so on because they were in game X (game X being an incarnation D&D as often as not in many cases). They do not question if the features of game X are well suited to their own ideas. This may simply be something that separates the wheat from the chaff, though. Not everybody is going to be good at game design, and few of them are good right out of the starting game. It's a feature of the hobby that we can only be mindful of when designing our own games and, hopefully, enlighten others if they'll listen.

[Emily Care]

...game system (Swift) that only had two outcomes for skill/attribute rolls, success (often) and success with difficulties (infrequent), I was amazed at the difference in player behaviour. They relaxed and did interesting things, acted like heroes (as their characters) and so on.

In my experience, you don't need an incentive to get people to look for character development.  It has arisen from the social atmosphere and the combined goals of the participants.  Sounds like the dynamic of the mechanics took the emphasis off of "will I be able to do it?????!!!???" to "what am I going to do?"  

Back to the Hero discussion:

I think you're saying that in a hero-quest, not everybody can be the hero.  

Or perhaps rather, "it's less interesting if everyone is the same kind of hero."  

Luke is the innocence to experience variety. As xiombarg said, you can pick and choose the hero archetype you want to explore. Or choose from the 36 Types of Dramatic storyline or some such--though that crosses from Sim to Dram.  

Then, the mechanics (in terms of rewards and improvement) for each player are DIFFERENT, according to archetype.

I like this idea. How could this be implemented in Sim rather than Dram play?

All character development is innocence to experience in some aspect, so perhaps that's why it's chosen most often.  It's an easy trajectory.  And perhaps contracycle's point about the age of gamers is related too.

--Emily Care

[szilard]

Actually, you could hang an interesting game on that. Decide on Setting and Color for your hero quest. Everyone picks a Campbellian archetype important in the Hero Quest, including one (and only one) Hero. Then, the mechanics (in terms of rewards and improvement) for each player are DIFFERENT, according to archetype. The Hero is rewarded by increased effectiveness. The Guide is pretty effective to begin with, and is rewarded with narrative control -- the advice he gives can be "made to be true" through some metagame mechanic. (Also, once during the story the Guide can totally transform when defending the Hero against great evil, like Obi-Wan dying and getting a nifty ghost body, or Gandalf becoming Gandalf the White.)

I have a game on the (way) back-burner that tries to do something like this (mentioned it in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3928&highlight=">this thread). In the current draft, each character chooses an archetype (or, more likely, multiple archetypes in which the hero partially partakes). Archetypes are rewarded with plot points for acting according to the archetype. Different archetypes can use plot points for different things. The apprentice can use them to increase skills through learning, the daredevil hero can use them to perform near-impossible feats, the leader can use them to inspire others, etc. "Experience points," then, become a sub-set of a larger sort of currency.

Stuart

[Jason Lee]

As far as incorporating different levels of competency in PC's, it is pretty easy in mainly Sim point based systems.  I like setting a starting point total, and let PC's go into 'point debt' if they want someone more wise or powerful.  Now, you obviously don't want to allow debt beyond the expected gain from the campaign.  The less competent characters will improve (as per the hero quest) and the more competent ones won't (they'll be paying off their debt).  This wouldn't work for a heavy Gamist design, but allowing different competency levels with a Gamist priority seems like a rotten idea anyway.

The 'hero questing' character's shouldn't feel cheated because it was their choice.  They wanted to nuture something and see it grow.
If everyone wants someone more wise and powerful, then I guess you need to scale your game up.

This is just a hack onto existing systems like Storyteller or GURPS, and as such may not be optimal...but I find that it works.

[Mike Holmes]

Expanding on Jason's idea, and the notion that the heor questing characters become more powerful potentially in the end than their non-questing compatiriots, one could simply charge interest for debt. For example, Player A starts out spending his alloted 100 points on his character, and no debt. Player B spends 200 on his character, and therefore accrues a 100 point debt with, for ease, 100% interest. Thus, in order to be able to "advance" again, he needs to pay off 200 points. So, if both characters earn 300 points, Player A's character will be at 400 points, and Player B's character will only be at 300 (200+300-200). No early payoffs. This makes debt a serious consideration at the start.

One could also play around with this so as to allow a player in debt to go further in debt when appropriate. Perhaps there is some maximum to which they can be leveraged or some such (to maintian the desire to pay off the debt). Lot's of other cool stuff one could do with this, I imagine.

Mike

[ADGBoss]

As for Heroes, if anyone is interested I have been writing an RPGnet column on the very notion of What is a Hero? You can find it here: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/heroes.html  Its not a sop to get you to read my column but I honestly think it may have something to add the above discussion on Hero Assumption.

Anyway.  Character Development.  This discussion (and I am sorry I missed it at first) is very much where I was trying to go with my currency issue in the Indie Game Design Forum. Thats http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5103">here. The idea was to have a Character's Goal or goals reward them with improved Abilities of a sort. Of course at the time I did not take into effect Failure and I am working on that idea as well.  People learn from Failure as well as Success after all.

I think there is a concern of perspective here as well as a concept of change over time. If a game is short term in terms In-Game time i.e. something like 24, clearly although a person may learn things about themselves in one day they are not likely to graduate demolitions school or become beauty experts in that time.  

If a game is short term as far as Out of Game time but long term in game, characters will need to change, not necassarily improve.  Although if you play out the life of a Kingdom over 70 years in game and 4 hours real time, I would imagine that at some point, regardless of competetive advantage, some skills may indeed imrpove.

Now I am going to make a Realism Assumption and I realise that many games have made this same Assumption previously: In a Long Term simulating Long Term in game time (months years etc) it seems logical that a character will develop emotionally and physically as well as gain new insights into abilities. Insights = Skills or Health or Powers in this case. Its hard to imagine that would not happen even if the starting characters were very experienced. After all, Character Development can be an awakening of certain Powers. Paul Atraedes, Neo from Matrix, Luke Skywalker who goes through training and epiphany of a sorts.  In many circumstances these awakened abilities will give an advantage of some sort.  Only Neo could fight the Machine, big Advantage there.  Now does this make such an awakening/imrpovement Gamist? I am not sure that it does ( I could be wrong.)

Jack, I think you make a very good point about RPG Design Assumptions. Clearly somewhere there is a Checklist of what must be part of the game or else its not RPG or the RPG is lacking something.  Now I think any game design will make assumptions, the problem arises when it makes the same assumptions as every other game design.

Sean
ADGBoss

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The use of the term hero-quest here hasn't been sitting well with me. I haven't read Campell, but it strikes me that there is a similarity between the mythic hero-quest and D&D leveling up or gaining skill point or whatnot, but they are not the same thing and I don't think we should confuse the two.

I'll use Star Wars, since it's the only example of it I'm familiar with. Unlike the 36 levels of D&D (the version *I* know, anyway) Luke goes through three stages of development: farm boy to jedi-in-training to jedi knight. That's it. This is more than just counting stages. Ron had noted in the Fantasy Heartbreakers essays/discussion that D&D character development has basically three stages, regardless of level number:

a prolonged "weeny" stage, a brief "pretty damn good" stage, and an upwardly-spiralling "unstoppable" stage

Also three stages, but these stages are not the same stages Luke Skywalker goes through. Luke instead goes through

[*]The boy shows promise At this stage, he skows that he has the natural gift it takes to be the hero. This is similar to Keanu Reeves's Neo from the Matrix. He has potential to be the hero and begins his journey to become that hero. Although untrained with this raw talent, Luke is far from a "weeny." He's a good shot, and expert pilot and blew up the frickin' Death Star. Hardly qualifies as a weeny. (A better example of "weeny" lies in computer games like Dragon Warrior where low-level character have no business fighting anything tougher than "slimes.")
[*]Not ready yet The hero is well on his way to becoming the hero, but he is not ready yet. The point here is that although the hero has learned much, he still has much to learn.
[*]Ready The training is done, and now it is time for the hero to fulfill his destiny.
[/list:u]
That last bit may be a big reason why plain old character advancement should not be confused with the hero-quest. The hero-quest has a purpose. There is something the hero is preparing to do, like overthrowing an evil galactic empire. That sort of thing. Character advancement *might* have such a grand purpose if the players decides to inject it into the game, but mostly it's about being able to kill tougher and more interesting monsters.

That's my rant. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread already in progress.

[Emily Care]

[*]The boy shows promise At this stage, he skows that he has the natural gift it takes to be the hero. This is similar to Keanu Reeves's Neo from the Matrix. He has potential to be the hero and begins his journey to become that hero. Although untrained with this raw talent, Luke is far from a "weeny." He's a good shot, and expert pilot and blew up the frickin' Death Star. Hardly qualifies as a weeny. (A better example of "weeny" lies in computer games like Dragon Warrior where low-level character have no business fighting anything tougher than "slimes.")
[*]Not ready yet The hero is well on his way to becoming the hero, but he is not ready yet. The point here is that although the hero has learned much, he still has much to learn.
[*]Ready The training is done, and now it is time for the hero to fulfill his destiny.
[/list:u]

This is quite reminiscient of the three act dramatic structure.  So it sounds like you're drawing a distinction, Jack, between character advancement per se, where resources are accrued or abilities increased, and an arc of character development that is dynamic, and has dramatic tension.  The purpose you talk about transforms a character's history from an acquisition fest to a heroic quest.

--Emily Care

[John Kim]

I'll use Star Wars, since it's the only example of it I'm familiar with. Unlike the 36 levels of D&D (the version *I* know, anyway) Luke goes through three stages of development: farm boy to jedi-in-training to jedi knight. That's it.

That last bit may be a big reason why plain old character advancement should not be confused with the hero-quest. The hero-quest has a purpose. There is something the hero is preparing to do, like overthrowing an evil galactic empire. That sort of thing. Character advancement *might* have such a grand purpose if the players decides to inject it into the game, but mostly it's about being able to kill tougher and more interesting monsters.  

Hmm.  I think there is some degree to which Luke having these three stages is simply a product of his appearing in exactly three movies.  For example, Harry Potter definitely develops, but I don't think you can as easily break down the 4+ books into these three stages.  

Also, not all heroes have only a single purpose.  Other heroes go through multiple, open-ended quests with different purposes.  There may be advancement with each quest.  

Ninja Hero had an interesting suggestion about this.  It had an option that beginning characters should set aside a big block of points.  This represents the "trained by a master" sequence which generally occurs with starting martial arts heroes.  After that, there is only the slow, incremental improvement typical of the Hero System, which would correspond to continuing stories featuring that hero after he has risen to true hero status.