Greetings!

My company has been developing a post-apocalyptic/cyberpunk game for about four months now called Decay (http://www.decayrpg.com), and I've been mulling over the problem of Experience Levels for about three of those four months. So, I figured it was time to consult the forums.

Basically, instead of characters having a lot of numbered Levels to denote their relative power, there are five named Experience Levels that set the character's maximums for Skills and other game-related statistics.

They are:
Green
Regular (Default Starting Level)
Veteran
Elite
Legendary

Obviously, it takes a while (about 8-12 game sessions) to reach the next level, which is why there are only five of them. As characters gain Experience Points, they eventually reach the next benchmark which allows them to increase their skills and stats above the limit of their last Level. Also, when creating a character, the Arbiter (GM) can choose to allow the players to start at a higher or lower Experience Level to allow for "off-the-farm" characters (Green EL) and "badass-from-the-start" characters(Veteran EL).

My questions are: Do you forsee any issues with using a system like this? Does this seem like a viable way to temporarily limit characters from getting too powerful? Do I need to elaborate more for these questions to be answered?

Thanks in advance!

The idea that characters must spend a certain amount of time as scrubs before becoming "too" powerful has become a common trope in RPG design.  It's valuable in gamist situations where players conflict with other players and in simulationist situations where the setting is largely predefined (ie. lots of npc profiles) and required to be very robust (i.e. resistant to changes by players).  I'm not sure what your goals are in this game so I can't say if power levels make sense.  Since a portion of the game is online, I suspect you want power levels because of the latter reason. 

If this is so, and you're using the power levels to enforce a) realism and b) world robustness, it may be simply better to define different "starting points" akin to classes rather than arbitrary power levels.  For example if you were a vault dweller, you may be better versed in science and 50's era pop culture than a tribal, but worse in gecko-skinning.  The caps on science would be higher for a vault dweller.  This would enforce local robustness while maintaining global realism. 

In any case, what are your avowed goals in the game, and how to the power levels help deliver that experience to the players?

I'm not sure what you mean by "avowed goals".

There really isn't a central goal to the setting. There are a plethora of different archetypes for what a group's campaign could be centered around: from corporate sabatoge and gang/syndicate related wars in the Megaplex, to bitter survival and rebuilding in the Outlands, the players can choose what they want their game to be about.

For example, you might have one group whose campaign centers around street-mercenaries who do the Megacorporation's dirty work. Their characters would be a crew of highly trained covert-ops specialists who make their money by taking under-the-table contracts from whatever type of proprietor will pay the most.

On the other hand, another group might have a campaign centered around a group of wandering scavengers just trying to survive in the wasteland. Their characters would spend most of their time exploring the ruins of the old civilizations, encountering strange creatures, avoiding mutants and marauders, and doing their best to find enough food and water to make it through the next twenty-four hours.

Though there's no reason it can't be, the game isn't set up to be a deep study of character personality so much as an adventure game centered around realistic action and gritty (sometimes depressing) science-fiction. If I were to have to pin one of the three titled on it, I suppose it would be a 'simulationist' type of game, though I don't particularly agree with labeling games in such a way.

Is that what you're asking?

The Experience Levels, in my eyes, serve two functions:
1) To allow a GM to judge how powerful a character is in comparison to an enemy or situation or even another player's character. We plan on having printed adventures that use Experience Levels to give a benchmark for how powerful the characters should be if they plan to undertake the adventure. So, you might have an adventure designed for very experienced characters that's labeled "Best for 3-5 Characters of Veteran Level".

2) To prevent players from creating unbalanced characters by imposing limits on them based on how much action their character has seen. A sixteen-year-old momma's boy (a Green character) who gets thrust into living on the streets when his parents die obviously shouldn't be as well versed in the use of a fire arm as, say, a grissled mercenary whose seen more then his fair share of gun fights (a Veteran character).

I'd rather not use anything related to predefined sets of points based on what "class" or occupation your character has. I mean, if the player and game master can decide on a believable reason why it should be so, who are we to say that a tribal character cannot be as well versed in the use of a car as a cityslicker. As long as the Game Master sees it as a plausible situation, there's no reason we should impose limits of who can be good at what. However, to promote balance between different characters in a group, there has to be some limit to how good any character can be at any one thing.

Let me know if I want out on a tangent that didn't relate to your questions.

Hi!
Well, I think the big question is:
- Do your Skills rise depending on these Definitions (green...)
- Or do they rise and later you get this title (regular...)
If it is the later, then I think there is nothing wrong with it. But if your Players have to wait 8 Days to raise any Skill it would definitely be too long to wait.

What I would do:
If it is only a limit you want, you can use a Title-System like with my RPG. So a high level number will help your players feel, that they are advancing every evening, and a title will make them comparabel (especially in a forum). I have a Fantasy-RPG where this works great: 25 levels, where you advance every evening and titles for each guild that your Character can earn at a certain level (a Novice, an Apprentice, a Honourable Member, a Master and the Leader of the Guild). So you wouldn't say "a level 5 Hammerite" but "a Hammerite Apprentice" if you were an Apprentice in the Warrior-Order of the Hammerites. A player at a certain level can get these titles, and will have great advantages in his guild and in society. But it is not directly connected to your level, so that you can still spent points regularly. And for the limit, you can limit certain Abilities or level of Abilities to each Status.

Why I wouldn't pick Green, Regular, Veteran, Elite, Legendary:
I think these Names are not Colourful enough. An example: Who is a better fighter? The Regular Ninja or the Rugular Mech (I don't know if these Chars are even possible but I think you got my point). The Idea is to give them Names that express, what they are but still give each type an individual touch. For example this COULD be an idea: The Ninja: A FOLLOWER of the lightning path; The Mech: STANDARD Model 207d. These names could be extended to Novice, Follower, Master... or for the Mech: Old, Standard, Improved, Prototype...
A test: Who is better: The Master of the Lightning Path or the Improved Model 207d.

So, I hope I understood your questions, if not simply ask again.
Your Website looks great, anyway, even if I don't see the point in a forum based game.

Sentience wrote: My questions are: Do you forsee any issues with using a system like this? Does this seem like a viable way to temporarily limit characters from getting too powerful? Do I need to elaborate more for these questions to be answered?

Wow! Thanks for the replies! :)

Okay...

To explain the online portion: It's hard for me to get into too much detail (the rest of my company basically said: "Don't give away too much information!") but, I can tell you that Decay Online will be neither a MUD nor have a Play by Post format. Therefore, world changing ass kickers will only be affecting their local world (local meaning the Decay world that exists within one groups imagination, not the "official" world that everyone who plays the game experiences. We plan to have a section of the web site where players can submit their ideas of world-changing events and, subject to review, will actually become part of the official setting).

To Scrandy: To answer your question...

The GM will award experience points at the end of each play session. These XP translate to benefits that allow you to improve your character's skills and statistics. Once you've reached the next benchmark (Say a Green character reaching 100 XP), you ascend to the next Experience Level which raises the cap on how high your Skill levels can be, as well as a handfull of other things. So, your skills rise and later you get this title.

I see what you mean with Level - Title system, however I was attempting to stray away from the 'Level 4 Gunslinger' type of gig. Also, there are no classes. Each player basically comes up with an adjective/noun 'Concept' for their character (Grumpy Merchant, Sly Thief, Charming Reporter), so having specific names for each type of character is kind of impossible, unless I come up with a catagorization (class) system such as, Combat, Stealth, Negotiation, Psionics, etc etc.

While I do agree that the titles Green, Regular, Veteran, Elite, and Legendary are sort of bland, I can't seem to come up with anything else along those lines that doesn't sound too 'midieval'. It's pretty hard-edged sci-fi, so I can't see myself using terms like Apprentice and whatnot.

As far as who is better a fighter: a Regular Ninja and a STANDARD 207d? This is a tough one to answer... First of all (and I know you were just giving an example) comparing a human ninja to a ten ton mech is like apples an oranges. However, I think you were referring to the mech-pilot rather then the mech itself. But, if we trying to figure out who's a better 'fighter' between a Regular Ninja and a Regular Mechpilot, I'd have to say the Ninja's skills are more focused on combat, so he'd probably be the better 'fighter'. If we were comparing an abstract level of 'ability and prowess', these two character would be relatively equal, so long as both had the same number of Experience Points. But, once the Mechpilot gets seated in the cockpit of his STANDARD Model 207d Heavy Reconnaissance Walker (hehehe, I love technical names) all bets are off!

Thanks for the compliment on the website! But you don't see a point for it?

To Callan:

By 'too powerful', I mean when a particular character maxes out his Fire Arms skill to the point where he never misses things that the other characters in his crew have a hard time hitting. Basically, since there are no preset classes define how good your character can be in a Skill, we instill limits on the characters to keep them from becoming unbalanced (too powerful in particular area of expertise). Obviously, as a crew progresses together, the difficulty of the tasks they're challenged with can progress as well.

To keep the element of challenge in the game, it's important that the players don't (quickly) ascend to a level of ability that requires the GM to throw fifty-foot, fire breathing, mutant-demon-dragon-spawn at them just to ensure there's some excitement in the game. While the game allows for this (the Legendary Experience Level), it takes a long time to get to this point.

By 'stagnant power scaling' you mean assigning specific, unchangeable, score to characters based on what they are? Like how a Level 1 Fighter in D&D always has a +1 To Hit score?

If thats what you're referring to, it would be difficult to include an element like that into the game when it has a relatively abstract, open ended, classless system. Besides, not every brand new gunslinger has the same level of Skill in Fire Arms.

I continue to hear the terms: 'robustness' and 'redudancy'. Could you briefly explain these to me, if it's not too much trouble?

Anway, thanks again guys. Simply discussing the topic is sort of deepening my understanding of whats going on.

Sentience wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "avowed goals".

Hi!
I have something to add to my last post, because I think you missunderstood me in some way:

At first, yes your webside is great and I love the design and I think you are creating a very interesting mood with it. What I personally don't understand is, why I would want to play a non PC-RPG where I have to use a PC. You know what I mean. One of my main values of a RPG is meeting real friends in a real room. But this is only my personal thing and perhaps when your game is ready I change my mind about that.

So to the Ninja/Mech thing:
My point in this perhaps a bit crazy example was, that both are called regular (Regular Ninja/Regular Mech). By using that naming idea the two characters seem somewhat compatable, but as you saw for yourself they aren't. A Ninja has complete different Skills than a Mech and I think for that there should be different names. So i suggested the STANDARD 207d and the FOLLOWER of the lightning path, where the words standard and follower should simply stand for a regular Character and could be exchanged by other words for higher levels later. It is really the same like "REGULAR 207d" and "REGULAR of the lightning path" but it sounds more fitting.
But in the end it is not my game and as I don't know enough of your game and its goals and features it maybe is not that important thing that HAS to be changed.
For example, I don't find the need of stopping newbees to get a supermunchkin Stat at the beginning in my game, but in your game it could make sense (especially with the web part in it).

Which leads me to my final concern: Why do your people at your firm make such a hiding game out of your ideas? As I see it, your idea is allready in progress and not so far from launch, so who should be earlier with the same idea like you, even if some lame idiot would copy every idea from you. I think what is much better for your business is to shout it out! Let everybody know what you are doing! If it is good they will tell others and you will do more for your business then with hiding things, and if you are lucky they all await your game before it is even finished. And if you did bad, well, you get a chance to make it better before it is published. I don't think that anybody could steal your idea here, because even if you tell many details, there will still be much left that you can sell and it will never be enough material out here to make a copy of your game or your game idea. And instead of hiding things you should release more information at least about the basic idea, goals  and mechanics, because then we can help here improve it or at least give you the feedback you want.
But in the end it's your policy.

Hi Sentience,

I'm not sure I agree with Majidah's overall direction and I wont rush into GNS stuff and things yet.

To keep the element of challenge in the game, it's important that the players don't (quickly) ascend to a level of ability that requires the GM to throw fifty-foot, fire breathing, mutant-demon-dragon-spawn at them just to ensure there's some excitement in the game. While the game allows for this (the Legendary Experience Level), it takes a long time to get to this point.

Callan S.  That's what I was getting at, but you've probably put it in clearer terms. 

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that Sentience & co. are going for an Legend of the 5 Rings or One World by Night thing with the website.  As individual players play, their submit their post-game transcripts to the website, some of which become cannonical events in the game world.  This is a faboo idea, it's quick content creation that's garunteed to appeal to the people who enjoy the game.  It allows people who play the game in different groups to still feel that they are part of a larger community of players as they would in an mmog.  Thus, powerlevels are an attempt to as Callan said, restrict the initial impact players can have.  If this is the case, then powerlevels are sort of unenforcable.  Different groups will just use different levels or claim they've worked their way up.  If there is an enforcement organization ah la OWBN, it'll be difficult for newer players to feel relevant since they lack the 'world reacts to me' level powers of older players (this got pretty absurd in OWBN, every Tom, Dick and Harry Wampire owned a multinational corporation or two).  I think it might be best to do away with power levels and just use a careful hand in the editting process for what becomes cannonical. 

Again, I'm quite impressed with the responses I'm getting. However, with such good responses, my post will be unfortunately be extremely long!

To Majidah: Thanks for the explanations. My GNS Skill Level is a bit low, but I think it just leveled up!

By goals I mean: "What are the players of the game meant to enjoy about it?"  Are they going to fight other players or npc monsters to demonstrate that they have a sound understanding of tactics?  Are they going chat with their friends about what life would be like after the bomb? Are they going to explore a big sandbox?  Something else?  It helps to know how the game is supposed to be enjoyed before I make reccomendations on how to enjoy it.

Powerlevels as you've described seem to exist soley to prevent over-specialization

Side note, what prevents me from saving my points until I attain a higher powerlevel and dumping them all into my gunnery skill?

If they are meant to compete or prove themselves, then power levels are nessecary to ensure the playing field is level otherwise, they just serve to make it more difficult for a group to successfully explore the extent of what the world has to offer

In answer to questions:

1. Stagnant power scaling--
This refers to the ratio ...

Why do your people at your firm make such a hiding game out of your ideas?

Let everybody know what you are doing! If it is good they will tell others and you will do more for your business then with hiding things, and if you are lucky they all await your game before it is even finished. And if you did bad, well, you get a chance to make it better before it is published

What I personally don't understand is, why I would want to play a non PC-RPG where I have to use a PC.

My point in this perhaps a bit crazy example was, that both are called regular (Regular Ninja/Regular Mech). By using that naming idea the two characters seem somewhat compatable...

I don't think that anybody could steal your idea here, because even if you tell many details, there will still be much left that you can sell and it will never be enough material out here to make a copy of your game or your game idea. And instead of hiding things you should release more information at least about the basic idea, goals  and mechanics, because then we can help here improve it or at least give you the feedback you want.

Why couldn't the very first minute of play likely require the GM to throw in fifty-foot, fire breathing, mutant-demon-dragon-spawn? Ie, players can be at top level right at the start. Why wouldn't that be fun?

Basically I'm seeing a see-saw where at first players react to the GM's game world but over time that changes to the GM('s game world) reacting to the players characters.

Is it because the fifty-foot, fire breathing, mutant-demon-dragon-spawn are only there because of numbers - the numbers the players pumped up to epic levels? Ie, a player pumps his resist damage skill to epic levels - that means the firebreather is only because player put resist damage ultra high. There's no game world reason for the firebreather to be there. Does that sound a bit right?

Callan S.  That's what I was getting at, but you've probably put it in clearer terms. 

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that Sentience & co. are going for an Legend of the 5 Rings or One World by Night thing with the website.  As individual players play, their submit their post-game transcripts to the website, some of which become cannonical events in the game world.  This is a faboo idea, it's quick content creation that's garunteed to appeal to the people who enjoy the game.  It allows people who play the game in different groups to still feel that they are part of a larger community of players as they would in an mmog.  Thus, powerlevels are an attempt to as Callan said, restrict the initial impact players can have.  If this is the case, then powerlevels are sort of unenforcable.  Different groups will just use different levels or claim they've worked their way up.  If there is an enforcement organization ah la OWBN, it'll be difficult for newer players to feel relevant since they lack the 'world reacts to me' level powers of older players (this got pretty absurd in OWBN, every Tom, Dick and Harry Wampire owned a multinational corporation or two).  I think it might be best to do away with power levels and just use a careful hand in the editting process for what becomes cannonical. 

Hi Majidah (what's your real name, btw?),

Thus, powerlevels are an attempt to as Callan said, restrict the initial impact players can have.

Callan wrote: Basically I'm seeing a see-saw where at first players react to the GM's game world but over time that changes to the GM('s game world) reacting to the players characters.

This is a very interesting and thought provoking concept to me. I've never thought about it like that, but you're very right.

If I understand where you're going with this, then yes, the mutant-demon-dragon-spawn are only there because they represent a statistical challenge for a group of characters with really high skill levels. The reason I want to avoid this is because monsters of this stature should be a unique thing that fits the story and plays a role in the setting, rather then something that only exists because it's the only thing that still leaves a challange for the characters.

My name is Zack. :)

To Majidah:

I suspect that Sentience & co. are going for an Legend of the 5 Rings or One World by Night thing with the website.  As individual players play, their submit their post-game transcripts to the website, some of which become cannonical events in the game world

If there is an enforcement organization ah la OWBN, it'll be difficult for newer players to feel relevant since they lack the 'world reacts to me' level powers of older players (this got pretty absurd in OWBN, every Tom, Dick and Harry Wampire owned a multinational corporation or two).  I think it might be best to do away with power levels and just use a careful hand in the editting process for what becomes cannonical.

I'm really glad we could arrive at this mutual ground :).  Thinking about the see-saw along with everything else will likely make alot of things fall into place, in terms of design.

What I do think needs to be discussed is ensuring the game matures and both sides have a turn reacting to the other.

Also your idea of a community of players posting and how that would fit in such orders. Are you interested in a quick look into that? It doesn't have to be where the thread goes in general, just some quick ideas. :)

Callan wrote:
Hi Majidah (what's your real name, btw?),

Thus, powerlevels are an attempt to as Callan said, restrict the initial impact players can have.

Basically we were saying something similar, but I disagree in terms of it being a restriction. It's basically a turn order - PC's react to the GM's world, then over time that switches until the PC's have their turn with the GM's world reacting to them.

Alot of the time you find these games never mature to that second turn though, so it seems purely restriction for no actual payoff. That's something we should talk about here - ensuring the game matures and gives both sides a turn.

Sentience wrote:
Again, I'm quite impressed with the responses I'm getting. However, with such good responses, my post will be unfortunately be extremely long!

To Majidah: Thanks for the explanations. My GNS Skill Level is a bit low, but I think it just leveled up!

Now that I understand your question a lot better, I suppose my avowed goal is a bit of a mixture of your examples. On one hand, the game includes alot of exploration of the setting, since survival in the wasteland involves alot of exploring the ruins of the old civilizations. However, there is also an element of 'corporate/street intrigue'  because of the existance of the Megacities that involves the players breaking into Megacorp research facilities and things like that, so tactics and planning play a big part as well. And of course, every game based on the end of the world involves alot of discussion on what life would be like after a nuclear winter. So, at the risk of making the game sound too convoluted, all of these elements play a role in the game, especially when you consider where in the setting the game takes place. (I hope that makes sense)

Part of the fun in an RPG, in my eyes, is advancement. Earning new skills and abilities is part of the experience. It keeps the players wanting more. I've GMed games many times where, after a night's gaming session, one of the players lacks just enough experience to level up, or just enough skill points to upgrade their favorite skill. This leaves the player yearning for more, asking me, "When are we gunna play next?!". That's a very satisfying feeling and let's you know your player(s) are eager to play again.

Would that be something that had to be interweaved into the mechanics of the game, something that just needs to be considered with the online portion, or just something that should be suggested to Game Masters in the book?

Also your idea of a community of players posting and how that would fit in such orders. Are you interested in a quick look into that? It doesn't have to be where the thread goes in general, just some quick ideas. :)

Certainly! Do you have any thoughts or suggestions?

dadada-daaa-da-da-dun-dadada!

It's good to see such ambitious undertakings.  One thing I've noticed when writting a system is that easy and tempting to put alot in.  In the setting and color catergories, more is almost always better.  When you have a lovely detailed system, you'll get a lot of different desires on the players part.  Some will want to do Shadowruns, others will want to be junk collectors fighting off rad scorpians.  The players will find a way to play the game they wish to play, and ideally the rules should aid them. I think what Callan and I are worried about with the powerlevels is that you've started with some ideas about mechanics and now you're filling in the stats of the world to match.  This is the thing about the fire-breathing-hellbeast.  Is it there because the ecology, history and plot of the game require fire-breathing-hellbeasts? Or is it just to provide high powerlevels with something to fight?  It can be both, but at least one of the things will likely feel a bit artificial.

The Burrowing Reaper: Standing about four-feet off the ground, these strange creatures resemble gangly, massively deformed, bipedal moles. Though they're completely blind, their ability to sense vibration is uncanny. They posses bony scoop-like appendages called 'scythes' that they use to burrow through the parched underground, creating vast networks of warrens that interconnect with natural caverns and caves as well as manmade tunnels, shafts, and even into the basements of ruined buildings. Though they meet once a year to mate (they are hermaphrodites, but they still require a mate), they are solitary creatures by nature. This doesn't stop them from using each other's tunnel networks and even building on them. When they do occasionally bump into one another in the darkness, they seldom turn violent, most of the time stopping for an inspection before moving on. These creatures generally feed off decaying plant matter, but their favorite food is the plump, juicy larvae of the giant insect species known as the Lokust. They pose little threat to humans, but if they feel cornered or otherwise threatened, they respond by viciously thrashing with their scythes.

Advancment works two ways, the first is stagnant power scaling, where your numbers scale up to meet those of higher threat levels, so you're essentially running on a treadmill, the second is diversification.  You never knew you'd need to wield a lighsaber when you created your whiny farmboy, now it's a good thing you've got those experience points cause people need slicin!  Think of it as depth vs. breadth of development.  Depth divides the world into "zones" that require different levels or types of characters to explore.  Width allows characters to react to moving between zones  that may or may not be specified by depth.

OWBN is one world by night, an organization that used to oversee a large national group of Vampire: the Masqurade games.  It maintained a cannonical world based on what individual players did.

mentioning it would be ideal!  It's always surpising how close to the vest so many games play with thier structural ideas.  You can avoid a lot of headaches by just saying "here's why we put this in." If it's something you'd like to have in your game, these powerlevel mechanics could be one of the ways to support it.  Also include some setting details about how the wastes might be changed by the players to give them a leg up.

One of the things the legend of the five rings guys did, was to write a big scenario that was supposedly going down.  A good example might be, two great powers go to war.  Then players play little vingettes each of which explores a small part of the great war.  Inspired by some of this input, designers write an event which takes place at a Con or a big online gathering.  This event decides the outcome of the original big scenario.  Rinse and repeat. It's a great way to give the players a kind of proprietary feeling.

Hi Zack,

Okay what I'm going to suggest is going to be ass backwards at first - because it wont be about story first, it'll be about looking after players first (ie, making sure they get their turn at the high end of the see saw)

This is it: Have smaller experence levels inside the larger one, ones which can be met in a single session.

These experience levels would revolve around a cluster of skills, rather than covering the characters entire capacity (as your XP levels cover that now).

Okay, in play they can be raised rapidly during play. Not at the end, right during play - preferably right when the GM has presented some (to him) significant part of the game world (well work on how to ensure this). The players choose which skill (out of the cluster in question) are raised and play goes on.

I think for your purposes the raising is some sort of 'insight' mechanism - the skill raises, but not permanently - only for the particulars of the current adventure does the character have his insight.

Finally, the insight raising can go right up to legendary. Yup, in one session! ONE session!

Essentially you already have a see-saw that shifts over many sessions. Here there's a smaller see-saw shifts over one session, but it doesn't involve the whole character (just a cluster of skills) and isn't permanent.

I'm not pitching this in terms of it fitting genre somehow or fitting the feel of a game world. It's there to ensure players get their turn at the high end of the see-saw. I'm guessing this could seem 'off' because without any game world/story reason for it, it's hard to internalise. What do you think?

So, to conclude, these uber-monsters exist for both reasons, but primarily because the setting requires them. The Revenance provides a deep mystery for players to investigate and ponder on. It also serves as venue to bring a 'horror' element into a game that is essentially based on 'shadowruns' and 'wastelanders'. Lastly, it provides a host of particularly tough opponents for more powerful characters to encounter and (hopefully) defeat...But, when designing the stats for these uber-monsters, I do intend to keep an eye on the Experience Levels, so that they can provide the duel purpose of being both an integral (albiet enigmatic) element to the setting, and also provide a statistical challenge for Crews that have ascended beyond the normal scope of play.

Does it seem like one of these sides will be artificial?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Width allows characters to react to moving between zones that may or may not be specified by depth."
Could you explain that a bit better, my friend? :)

I see what you mean. With the help you guys have given me, I'd like to include that idea as a core feature of the game (if you don't mind!). So what you're suggesting is when writing the Game Master section of the book, I should explain the 'see-saw' of power and how at lower levels, the characters will be reacting to the GM's world, while at higher levels the GM will be reacting to the players choices. Should I, then, also explain that both sides of the spectrum should certainly be explored?

Callan wrote:
Hi Zack,

Okay what I'm going to suggest is going to be ass backwards at first - because it wont be about story first, it'll be about looking after players first (ie, making sure they get their turn at the high end of the see saw)

This is it: Have smaller experence levels inside the larger one, ones which can be met in a single session.

These experience levels would revolve around a cluster of skills, rather than covering the characters entire capacity (as your XP levels cover that now).

Okay, in play they can be raised rapidly during play. Not at the end, right during play - preferably right when the GM has presented some (to him) significant part of the game world (well work on how to ensure this). The players choose which skill (out of the cluster in question) are raised and play goes on.

I think for your purposes the raising is some sort of 'insight' mechanism - the skill raises, but not permanently - only for the particulars of the current adventure does the character have his insight.

Finally, the insight raising can go right up to legendary. Yup, in one session! ONE session!

Essentially you already have a see-saw that shifts over many sessions. Here there's a smaller see-saw shifts over one session, but it doesn't involve the whole character (just a cluster of skills) and isn't permanent.

I'm not pitching this in terms of it fitting genre somehow or fitting the feel of a game world. It's there to ensure players get their turn at the high end of the see-saw. I'm guessing this could seem 'off' because without any game world/story reason for it, it's hard to internalise. What do you think?

Dude...it just ate a huge post...

*shakes his fist at the Forge*

I'll post again later...

I was able to salvage a bit of the post I lost...Whew!

Okay...

Hi Callan,

I must admit, I'm slightly confused about your suggestion.

Here's what I think:

Okay what I'm going to suggest is going to be ass backwards at first - because it wont be about story first, it'll be about looking after players first (ie, making sure they get their turn at the high end of the see saw)

This is it: Have smaller experience levels inside the larger one, ones which can be met in a single session.

These experience levels would revolve around a cluster of skills, rather than covering the characters entire capacity (as your XP levels cover that now).

Okay, in play they can be raised rapidly during play. Not at the end, right during play - preferably right when the GM has presented some (to him) significant part of the game world (well work on how to ensure this). The players choose which skill (out of the cluster in question) are raised and play goes on.

I think for your purposes the raising is some sort of 'insight' mechanism - the skill raises, but not permanently - only for the particulars of the current adventure does the character have his insight.

Essentially you already have a seesaw that shifts over many sessions. Here there's a smaller seesaw shifts over one session, but it doesn't involve the whole character (just a cluster of skills) and isn't permanent.

Finally, the insight raising can go right up to legendary. Yup, in one session! ONE session!

I'm not pitching this in terms of it fitting genre somehow or fitting the feel of a game world. It's there to ensure players get their turn at the high end of the seesaw.

What do you think?

nope, this is more or less the response I was hoping for.  It's a great setting that's deep enough to have all kinds of interesting critters, but it's important to design in the direction you're going, which is roughly.  1. We want people to explore and learn about the world -->2.  We create an interesting world-->3. We design the content of the world based on the interesting principals from which it was made.

Imagine 3 villages: Townsville, Scorch and Radiatia.  Townsville is mild and safe.  Scorch is very hot, characters need Cool skill at 10 to survive.  Radeiatia is full of radiation, characters must have Radaway skill at 15 to survive.  At "green" power level, skills only go to 5, so players cannot possibly explore either Scorch or Radeiatia.  Finally the characters reach "Veteran" level, and thus can get skills up to 10.  Now they can explore Scorch.  However, there is a side effect, since all the characters skills can reach 10, Scorch must contain statistical challenges (tasks and monsters) which are twice as high as they were in Townsville to be equivalent to the element of uncertainty present in townsville.  Similarly, Radeiatia will be 3x townsville.

Width refers to players raising their Cool and Radaway skills.  These skills were unessecary in Townsville but upon moving to a new zone, became valuable.  Players could not have forseen this at character creation, so the advancement and power level mechanic exists to allow them to adapt.

Depth refers to players raising OTHER skills.  It's the treadmill effect, players power up, and the world gets more difficult to match them.  Here the advancement mechanic is only necessary because of the advancement mechanic.  The world is responding to more powerful characters, who in turn try to grow more powerful and...treadmill.

The only danger of Depth is that now the characters who've advanced to Radentia cannot have meaningful adventures in townsville because it is scaled improperly for them. 

The only danger of Depth is that now the characters who've advanced to Radentia cannot have meaningful adventures in townsville because it is scaled improperly for them.

It's also important to point out that width and depth don't have to be shackled to statistical advancement.  In a previous example, suppose players could spend experience points on a car (odd yes, but  they can now define the kind of equipment they'll find while scavenging), now they can reach a distant village without dying of dehydration.  You've allowed them to move through width, without adding depth.

My final question about powerlevels is specifically about what differentiates one zone from another

Quote from: Callan S. on Today at 12:08:12 AM
Hi Zack,

Okay what I'm going to suggest is going to be ass backwards at first - because it wont be about story first, it'll be about looking after players first (ie, making sure they get their turn at the high end of the see saw)

This is it: Have smaller experence levels inside the larger one, ones which can be met in a single session.

These experience levels would revolve around a cluster of skills, rather than covering the characters entire capacity (as your XP levels cover that now).

Okay, in play they can be raised rapidly during play. Not at the end, right during play - preferably right when the GM has presented some (to him) significant part of the game world (well work on how to ensure this). The players choose which skill (out of the cluster in question) are raised and play goes on.

I think for your purposes the raising is some sort of 'insight' mechanism - the skill raises, but not permanently - only for the particulars of the current adventure does the character have his insight.

Finally, the insight raising can go right up to legendary. Yup, in one session! ONE session!

Essentially you already have a see-saw that shifts over many sessions. Here there's a smaller see-saw shifts over one session, but it doesn't involve the whole character (just a cluster of skills) and isn't permanent.

I'm not pitching this in terms of it fitting genre somehow or fitting the feel of a game world. It's there to ensure players get their turn at the high end of the see-saw. I'm guessing this could seem 'off' because without any game world/story reason for it, it's hard to internalise. What do you think?

I likes it.  Somehow it reminds me of the Riddle of Steel, where characters had certain axioms they lived by that would dump gartantuan numbers of dice into their pools when it was dramatically appropriate.  I think a sufficient game/story reason for this advancement would simply be "your character is getting really familiar with fixing the protomechanicaldingbat." Doesn't mean his "dingbat-repair" skill is going to be huge for every subsequent dingbat he encounters.  Of course, you don't always need one.  Shadowrun allows you to destroy a tank with a .22 caliber pistol by testing damage up sufficiently.  It leaves the justification for the GM/players to come up with after the fact. 

Hi Zack,

Okay, you've seen merit in some of my ideas, so you know I'm not completely off base in my understanding.

I'll say this : the see-saw is utter bullshit if both sides don't get their turn. And in my opinion, having it take multiple sessions to get to the other other side of a see-saw (any see-saw, small or big), simply threatens those equal turns.

You've raised alot of good questions that I could get into, but it'd all be useless to answer unless I know you want to protect the players right to his turn at the high end of the see-saw. Everything I've suggested hinges on the idea that "Protect the players right to his turn at the high end" comes before "Get the players clued into the world" with you.

Here's a difficult question: It's always possible to get the players a little bit more clued into the game world, a little more in sync with it, a little more in the flow with it.

Given that, are you ever actually prepared to give up your turn GM'ing at the high end of the see-saw?

The fact is, while the mechanics in my example might seem to intrude, they actually stop...well, to put it roughly, someone extending their turn forever.

It is uncomfortable to not have the players clued in as much as you want - it takes your out of your comfort zone. But why invite them to play if you don't want to exit your comfort zone to some degree? You could imagine it by yourself if you wanted it to stay safe.

Basically, if you don't want to leave your comfort zone at some point, get rid of these damn levels. They seem to offer a turn at the high end of the see-saw, but frankly they dont (including starting at elite - that's just a two step see-saw, rather than a five step/level see-saw). They are a false promise. Because if you were willing to ever exit your comfort zone at all, you could handle it happening in just one session - waiting fifty sessions isn't going to make any difference.

If your not prepared to leave your comfort zone now, you wont be in fifty sessions time!

I think it's fine if you want to stay in a comfortable place in terms of gaming (go for it, it's valid design and I might even have ideas to aid that) - but on one hand these levels suggest that you don't want to just remain safe. And on the other hand you don't want it to happen in one session. But on the third(!) hand, as I said, if your not ready for it to happen right here, right now, right this session, man, your not going to be ready in twenty, fifty or a hundred sessions. It's time to decide. And I mean that in a healthy, looking towards a bright future way (whichever choice you take!) :)

Umm, also try not to single line quote if you want to quote me, it gets a bit messy (it's also a no-no at the forge). I know I've been hard hitting and now it sounds like I'm modding you, however my intent is for a clear thread which can help out both of us. Please don't hit me! :(

Sorry about the forge no-nos. I'm still pretty new here, and I'm not fully educated on Forge etiquette. My apologies.
The reason I did so was to clearify which part of your post I was responding to.

There seems to be a recurring idea of 'my comfort zone'. Allowing the players to have their turn at the high end of the seesaw isn't out of my comfort zone, hence why I found the idea of the seesaw a good idea in the first place. What I'd rather not do is create a system which promotes 'battling' over whose at the top of the seesaw. If the power shifts multiple times during a single session, someone (the GM, or the players) is going to feel like they're getting a raw deal, because just when they thought something was established, the power shifts back and the other side could negate that establishment.

In answer to your difficult question, are you're asking if I (me personally, zack) am ready to give up my spot GMing at the high end of the seesaw? If so, then I thought the apparent answer was yes. I personally enjoy games where the characters are powerful enough to make significant changes to the game I've established. Again, I wouldn't have embraced the idea of the power seesaw to begin with, had I not enjoyed the idea of giving players their turn.

If that question is directed at GMs in general, then I don't have an answer. Like I said, some GMs don't want to give up their spot at the top of the seesaw because it's going beyond their personal comfort zone, and I'm not sure as a designer if it's a good idea to force them to. Then again, if they are enthusiastic about the idea of letting the players control the flow of the game, I'd like to make sure they can do that, and I think you can help. However, forcing a the Game Masters out there to leave their comfort zone is not something I want my game to do. Perhaps we could talk about an optional game mechanic that could be used, rather then something that ingrained into the rules of the game?

You say I should be ready to leave 'my comfort zone' in a single session. I think we have to politely disagree. I understood the seesaw to be something that tipped from one side to the other smoothly, to allow the story to flow without conflict between what the GM had already established, and what the players planned to do (which, in my experience is almost always more radical and extreme then what the GM has in mind). The way I see it, flipflopping the power from left to right in such a short span of time is like dropping a cinderblock on one side of the seesaw, when no one is sitting on the otherside. It's going to make a loud noise and send sand flying all over the place. I cannot fathom how such a sudden and massive change of power could maintain equilibrium in a game session.

Maybe I'm old fashioned and I missed the new wave of RPG theory, but the role of the Game Master was not only to referee the rule system, but also to be the storyteller and the one who maintains a semblance of control over what could ultimately become a very chaotic scene. To allow the players to take control of the flow of the story whenever they please seems to defete the purpose of the GM. Again, maybe I'm narrowminded, but if they players can take control of the game whenever they see fit, what's the point of having a GM?

To say that starting the characters out one step below Legendary gives a false promise of a transition of power doesn't seem like a valid statement. At that point, like I said before, they're already in the position to takes the reigns and start manipulating the game world. Going one step up to Legendary doesn't grant them some great power and give them the green light to be at the high end of the seesaw. Ultimately, it's the individual GM's world (not mine, me, zack) and it's up to him or her to allow the transition of power to take place.

To sum it up, as a Game Master, allowing the players to have their turn at the high end of the seesaw is not out of my comfort zone as should be noted by my enthusiam behind the idea. However, as a game designer, forcing every GM out there to go beyond what could be their comfort level by ingraining a mechanic in the system that allows for a sudden and violent change of power is going beyond my comfort level.

I apologize if my last post was not receptive to your suggestions, but assuming things about when and if I would be ready to leave my safety zone doesn't seem like a productive way to discuss things.

I'd like to add something:

Yes, I do have the interest to protect the players by providing the information necessary to ensure they have the opportunity to be at the high end of the seesaw. However, I don't have the interest of forcing every GM who runs a Decay game to give up their right to stay at the high end of the seesaw, if that's how they feel.

Further more, from a business perspective, that seems like a wrong choice since it's usually the GM's who purchase the book and supplemental material.

If the GM wants to stay at the top of the seesaw, that's his prerogative, and if the players don't think this is fair, maybe they should find a new GM. I don't believe it's wise to say "Hey, as a Game Master in Decay, expect to have the Players take control of your game on a regular basis."

I'm not looking at this with bias for either the GM or the Players. I'm trying to protect both the GM and Players and make sure both parties can stay in their respective comfort zones, if they so choose.

Does this make sense?

The discussion over who's got their turn on the high end of the see-saw is related to "the impossible thing to do before breakfast"  which is discussed here:

http://ptgptb.org/0027/theory101-02.html

The basic upshot is, that it is paradoxical for one player to control the world and another to control a character within the world.  Since the character is part of the world, the former player has complete executive control over the latter.  This is because the rules apportion final executive credibilty to the GM.  Which is what vincent is discussing here in Roleplay's fundamental act: http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html

What Callan and I are hoping the intent of the power levels system is, is to encode in the game rules some way that players can get the authority to make changes to the game world, in a sense to make the GM's role more like bass playing and less like straight illusionism.  It's important to note that if the game doesn't last a long time, the see-saw never swings and most people won't get to experience being in charge.  So adding a see-saw mechanic to individual games is critical if you want the see-saw to actually happen.  Giving long term power levels will just allow a GM to kill off players who are about to take over, it should be clearer that this is ok.  Alternatively if you don't want to give players the hotseat, remove the power level rules, because they introduce that possiblity given enough time.  In either case you MUST NEEDS explain which of these you chose and why, or you risk building a conflict in to the game.

A related question is: How often and for how long do you expect people to play the game and with whom?  The answer is usually "As often as possible, as long as possible, with anyone interested." Which is a poor answer.  Imagine if we played frisbee like this, we'd be exhausted with a lot of sketchy strangers, and we'd burn out quick.  Long-term powerlevels serve the eternal campaign= good agenda, it's often better to put in smaller benchmarks to hit, so that players don't get bored waiting for the game to start.

On a different note, I think you've mistaken my point on Depth v. Width as a world property, I meant it more as a character development property.  Depth refers to skills that are useful in any context (eg. shootiness), width refers to skills that are useful in only specific contexts (eg. radaway).  The term Depth means that the character is just powerful in any context, while Width enables specific changes to respond to new things.  If characters just get wider, and cannot upgrade skills that will always be useful, every part of your world can be used at every level of character because the statistical challenges all work.  If you let your characters get deeper, statistical challenges will either disapear or have to increase to keep the characters on the edge.  This means that only SOME of your world is accessable to higher level characters.  It's the difference between having access to MORE of the world when you level up (width) and having access to DIFFERENT PARTS of the world when you level up (depth).

Anyway I'm curious to see how the see-saw debate comes out.  I'm hoping callan and I can peer pressure you into tossing it in =O!

Well, I understand what's being talked about in both of those links. But...I suppose it will do my credibility no good by admitting that things like this are a bit beyond my scope of thinking. I'm incredibly frustrated by deep study of RPG theory. To me, these things overcomplicate a pretty simple concept. Perhaps I'm looking for advise in the wrong place.

If I'm understanding correctly, my opinion is: why attempt to force the GMs to play bass instead of create illusions? The responsibility to transition the power between the GM and the Players should fall on the group playing the game, not the rules of the game their playing. Who am I to say, "Hey Joe, you can't run an illusionist game. You gotta play bass if wanna play Decay, buddy."?

For simplicity, let's look at this idea applied to a good old fashioned game of D&D. I can't image there being a rule in the game that says a Level 4 Mage can, at will, function like a Level 25 Mage so that the player gets a turn controlling the story for a few minutes in a session. This wouldn't work, because now the DM's dragon, that was supposed to prevent the PCs from just waltzing in and scooping up ungodly amounts of treasure, just got fried by a magic missile.

To be quite frankly honest (and you guys will probably hate me for this), I don't care if the seesaw effect takes place in Joe's game. I think it should take place, since it will allow the players to really become part of the story, but that's for Joe and his friends to sort out. Like I said, I'm not comfortable forcing Joe to run his game the way you, or I, or anyone else thinks it should be ran. 

If the game doesn't last long enough for the seesaw to take effect and for power to transition, then some where along the lines, something else failed. Either the game's rules didn't work for the group playing it, or the setting wasn't interesting enough for the group to keep with it, or the players got distracted and wanted to try something else, or the GM ran a boring adventure that left the players indifferent to playing again. If the group decides that they want the players to be in control of the game, there's nothing stopping them. The Experience Levels provide a statistical benchmark for players to create brand new characters that possess everything they need to make the world react to them, rather then them reacting to the world.

If Joe decides to kill off players that are about to take over, then Joe decided from the get-go that he was going to maintain control throughout the entire campaign. If this is the case, then forcing it into the rules that the players will take control, whether he likes it or not, means Joe isn't going to play this game to begin with. Why would Joe play a game that forces him to relinquish control, if he doesn't want to?

From what it seems like, you guys are saying that I either:

A) Need to force the seesaw to take effect quickly and often by ingraining a mechanic into the game that says "The seesaw will happen, and it will happen every single session, whenever the players feel like it, and since it's part of the established rules, the Game Master can't do a thing about it."

or...

B) Get rid of the Experience Levels completely because they allow the seesaw to either take effect over a short or long period of time, or even right from the beginning of the campaign, and that's not good because if (A) isn't true, then there should be no seesaw at all.

To me, this seems to be constraining my options a bit. It would seem like you guys don't think all the GM's out there will ever give up their turn at being at the top of the seesaw, so I need to design the game to make them give up the power. I don't think you guys give them enough credit. A respectable, intellegent GM knows that his world wouldn't exist without the Players. He knows he has to make sure the players are having fun, otherwise what's the point of them playing?

I LOVE the idea of the seesaw. I'm ecstatic that you guys have brought it infront of my eyes and let me mull over it for a while. But I (and I hate to use such a strong word) refuse to force it to take effect in the game. The players are already supplied with opportunity to be at the high end of the seesaw. I see no reason create a mechanic that basically gives the group no choice but to have this happen rapidly and all the time.

Like I said before, I feel the best way to bring the seesaw idea into Joe's game is to suggest it when explaining the ways a campaign can be set up. I'd like to explain the pro's and con's of using the seesaw idea, and the pro's and con's of not using it. I'd like to let him know that by allowing the players a turn at being at the top of the seesaw, it could add a new element of fun for both the GM and the players. But, by shoving the idea in the face of the GM and saying "Here, you have to use this. You don't have a choice. Live with it, or don't play the game." seems to me like a 'fuckyou, this is how it is' type of thing. I'm not interested in forcing the idea on the GM.

On the Depth vs. Width aspect, I have a vague understanding. It still seems a bit fuzzy to me, but again, these intricately detailed studies of RPG theory and content often go right over my head.

Great, this time my post got eaten!

Hi Zack, thanks for not hitting me! :)

I'm going to ask about this because it relates to intial buy in to the game

Like I said before, I feel the best way to bring the seesaw idea into Joe's game is to suggest it when explaining the ways a campaign can be set up. I'd like to explain the pro's and con's of using the seesaw idea, and the pro's and con's of not using it. I'd like to let him know that by allowing the players a turn at being at the top of the seesaw, it could add a new element of fun for both the GM and the players. But, by shoving the idea in the face of the GM and saying "Here, you have to use this. You don't have a choice. Live with it, or don't play the game." seems to me like a 'fuckyou, this is how it is' type of thing. I'm not interested in forcing the idea on the GM.

If I'm understanding correctly, my opinion is: why attempt to force the GMs to play bass instead of create illusions? The responsibility to transition the power between the GM and the Players should fall on the group playing the game, not the rules of the game their playing. Who am I to say, "Hey Joe, you can't run an illusionist game. You gotta play bass if wanna play Decay, buddy."?

Maybe I'm old fashioned and I missed the new wave of RPG theory, but the role of the Game Master was not only to referee the rule system, but also to be the storyteller and the one who maintains a semblance of control over what could ultimately become a very chaotic scene. To allow the players to take control of the flow of the story whenever they please seems to defete the purpose of the GM. Again, maybe I'm narrowminded, but if they players can take control of the game whenever they see fit, what's the point of having a GM?

I think the conflict is over the word "forced."  Simply put you cannot "force" any group of players to play a specific way, they will decide what kind of game they want to enjoy and change any and all rules of your game accordingly to allow themselves to play it.  The goal of a game is to allow players to have an enjoyable time while changing as few rules as possible. The rules  thus "support" a certain kind of play rather than "force" a certain kind of play.  You should try to avoid internally conflicting rules where possible and describe exactly what kind of game your trying to create so the players know what's up, rather than make them guess what you're trying to show them, but in either case, the social contract (how the players are related to one another) will work out the bugs as you've pointed out.

It sounds like the see-saw is in, so let's talk about that for a minute.  The see-saw means shifting from illusionism/participationism modes of play to bass playing.  At first the GM is telling the story so that the players get a crash course in decay-ology.  Like actors reading literature that pertains to their parts so they can play the part more accurately, the players get steeped in the setting.  Then the see-saw flips over and the players get a chance to dictate what happens while the GM just maintains the world and updates it according to what they do.  They get to have greater impact.  Another way to say this is that in the book "Player's journey in the wastes" the GM writes chapter 1, and the players write the rest. 

So in sum:
GM's turn
1. Describe the setting
2. Begin the storyline
3. Players learn to work together and to work with the world

Player's turn.
1. Modify the setting
2. Continue the story line
3. Work together with the GM

Now onto power levels.  Currently, your powerlevels are a bit confusing to me.  If statistical challenges rise to meet the players, then they don't really get their turn in the drivers seat unless they stay in safer areas.  This conflicts with the avowed aim of "explore the wastes."  If statistical challenges are more-or-less the same everywhere, then the players will get to explore, but they will almost immediately be in the  driver seat due  to their great personal power (since the entire world is balanced to a new character).  I think this is the paradox that Callan and I are discussing.  Callan's proposed solution is that there be incongrous statistical challenges, but player's statistics can rise to meet them.  This means that the players still explore, and still are challenged, but get to write a few changes in each game by hulking out.  An alternative is to do away with the powerlevels completely and have the world be statistically flat, so that players simply explore, and impact the game by amassing great wealth and prestige (but not high skills or deadly weapons). 

(aside: I think you've got the width/depth distinction, but here's one more analogy I thought of.  Imagine your world is divided into zones by high walls.  Width means giving your characters keys to get through.  Depth means letting them get strong enough to jump over.  Adding width to a character ONLY changes the zones they have access too, depth changes the zones, AND the kind of challenges you must offer).

I don't quite understand this - doesn't your game force a post apocalypse setting on a player who wants fantasy with elves?

But there are illusionist games and there are participationist games. Participationism is almost exactly the same, except the players KNOW they don't have control over stuff. Participationist games can and do rock out and are cool! They are an entirely valid approach and are very healthy play, in my mind.

But...illusionism. The forge glossary doesn't connotate illusionism with any negative context. I do. The players are led to believe they have/will have some control, but that is not how it is.

I could get into a can of worms on what I think about that and how you should treat other people. BUT! Lets just say I strongly, strongly advise against using mechanics that support illusionism.

But right now, it could go a seesaw game, but I think it's most likely going to go illusionist because while it offers power, it's terribly easy for an illusionist GM to screw up access to it. I guess I don't want you to help illusionist GM's with a system that, in my opinion, facilitates what they want to do. I'm very biased on this, and might not be of further help because of it. Participationism is much cooler and rocks out!

I can tell we should play something by post, it would involved unheard of hilarity.

One more note to my above post, Could you give us a little taste of the possible see-saw mechanics (sort of as you did above, but more)? We may be to the point where we've agreed to the idea, but implementing it is causing conflict.

Wow, my last post had A LOT of typos. Sorry

I think the conflict is over the word "forced."  Simply put you cannot "force" any group of players to play a specific way, they will decide what kind of game they want to enjoy and change any and all rules of your game accordingly to allow themselves to play it.  The goal of a game is to allow players to have an enjoyable time while changing as few rules as possible. The rules  thus "support" a certain kind of play rather than "force" a certain kind of play.  You should try to avoid internally conflicting rules where possible and describe exactly what kind of game your trying to create so the players know what's up, rather than make them guess what you're trying to show them, but in either case, the social contract (how the players are related to one another) will work out the bugs as you've pointed out.

It sounds like the see-saw is in, so let's talk about that for a minute.  The see-saw means shifting from illusionism/participationism modes of play to bass playing.  At first the GM is telling the story so that the players get a crash course in decay-ology.  Like actors reading literature that pertains to their parts so they can play the part more accurately, the players get steeped in the setting.  Then the see-saw flips over and the players get a chance to dictate what happens while the GM just maintains the world and updates it according to what they do.  They get to have greater impact.  Another way to say this is that in the book "Player's journey in the wastes" the GM writes chapter 1, and the players write the rest. 

So in sum:
GM's turn
1. Describe the setting
2. Begin the storyline
3. Players learn to work together and to work with the world

Player's turn.
1. Modify the setting
2. Continue the story line
3. Work together with the GM

Now onto power levels.  Currently, your powerlevels are a bit confusing to me.  If statistical challenges rise to meet the players, then they don't really get their turn in the drivers seat unless they stay in safer areas.  This conflicts with the avowed aim of "explore the wastes."  If statistical challenges are more-or-less the same everywhere, then the players will get to explore, but they will almost immediately be in the  driver seat due  to their great personal power (since the entire world is balanced to a new character).  I think this is the paradox that Callan and I are discussing.  Callan's proposed solution is that there be incongrous statistical challenges, but player's statistics can rise to meet them.  This means that the players still explore, and still are challenged, but get to write a few changes in each game by hulking out.  An alternative is to do away with the powerlevels completely and have the world be statistically flat, so that players simply explore, and impact the game by amassing great wealth and prestige (but not high skills or deadly weapons). 

One more note to my above post, Could you give us a little taste of the possible see-saw mechanics (sort of as you did above, but more)? We may be to the point where we've agreed to the idea, but implementing it is causing conflict.

Lets say theres a game where you start off with a pistol, and level 1 in gun skills. The world is set up so that it's not easy for you to shoot the bad guys, and when you hit them, it takes a few bullets to kill them. You play and play, and eventually you have a minigun that fires rockets and your gun skill 1,000,000. Sounds cool right? Well what if, even though you've attained this great power, everything in the game was still oriented towards when you had a pistol and a skill of 1. You can smoke every bad guy in your way without blinking an eye. Sure you've got the power now, and you no longer have to worry about the challenges set up by the game, but where's the fun? If there is no place to go in the game that's set up to be difficult for you, why play at all?

In my eyes, statistics serve to provide challenges that support the story, not run it. Having high statistics doesn't open a door that says "Okay, now you can participate in creating the story." Having low statistics doesn't mean "The GM is in control, because statistically, he can kill off your character." If the GM wants to let the Green characters have impact on the setting, he'll do so. If he doesn't want the Legendary characters to have an impact, he'll prevent it.

Is it not possible to find find a happy medium between bass playing and participationism? Such as (fallout stylie) an adventure where the characters are sent out of their home in search of a piece of technology that ensure the survival of the town. The GM knows where they can find this piece technology from square one. He knows the trail they have to follow in order to find it. He knows what will happen if they don't find it in time, and what will happen if they successfuly attain the item and save the town. However, how the players go about following the trail, and what happens during their adventures outside of the town is largely up the players. Perhaps the characters find the item, but decide to sell it to a merchant instead of returning it to the town. Maybe the characters hold some deep grudge against their home and ransome the item to the officials of the town. Maybe they decide not to bother to look for the item at all. The players can inherantly control the story in this fashion.

I think this is a hybrid of participationism and bass playing, but I think that depending on the choices of the players the game will be one or the other.  Essentially, if they go after the chip, the players are doing participationism, or maybe module play, following the trail of bread crumbs the GM is leaving.  They cannot produce a story that is not in accord with the basics of what the GM has laid down.  They only alter the how the preset events happen.  The details change, but not the substance. If the players decide to ignore the chip and explore the world on their own, then it's bass playing.  They create their own motivation and story for exploring the waste and the water chip was just their long forgotten starting point.  Sure it may bob back up, but they can just move on, there's no game over screen.  So, Either the players are participating in the GM's pre-planned story, or they're writting their own story about the waste, but not both. 

Well, then I guess my avowed goal of "exploring the wastes" should be changed to "exploring the harsh, brutal, challenging wastes".

Essentially my best answer is, not everyone enjoys the same thing.  Some people enjoy winning more than challenge, and will happily cheat.  Others are un-interested in slogging through the challenges just to test powerful gadgets and would rather start straight out with them.  It's impossible to produce a game that's always fun for everyone.  It's more likely you'll produce a game that's simply rarely fun for anyone.  The worry here is that you'll get a group that enjoys different aspects of the game.  If only one person enjoys combat, then any time they spend in combat is an example of that one person wasting everyone else's time.  During combat all but one of the players would be having a better time if they were doing something other than playing your game. 

What do power levels do?  If the goal is: We want players to explore the world.  Then powerlevels just dictate the order in which they must explore it (from lowest challenge to highest).  If the goal is for players to compete, either with each other or the world, then the power levels are the score.

To me, this is a problem.  Remeber the GM is just a player with a funny screen in front of him.  Imagine if the rules of chess said "The player of white decides the winner." All other rules seem sort of trivial don't they?  Apportioning this much power to the GM is likely to produce conflict between the have and the have nots.  I'd sort of hoped that the power mechanics would provide the players not the GM with a way to create their own story, not just follow his.

If the GM wants to let the Green characters have impact on the setting, he'll do so. If he doesn't want the Legendary characters to have an impact, he'll prevent it.

I think this is a hybrid of participationism and bass playing, but I think that depending on the choices of the players the game will be one or the other.  Essentially, if they go after the chip, the players are doing participationism, or maybe module play, following the trail of bread crumbs the GM is leaving.  They cannot produce a story that is not in accord with the basics of what the GM has laid down.  They only alter the how the preset events happen.  The details change, but not the substance. If the players decide to ignore the chip and explore the world on their own, then it's bass playing.  They create their own motivation and story for exploring the waste and the water chip was just their long forgotten starting point.  Sure it may bob back up, but they can just move on, there's no game over screen.  So, Either the players are participating in the GM's pre-planned story, or they're writting their own story about the waste, but not both. 

I understand what you're saying, but I think chess is a bad example. Chess is inherantly a competition. Decay is not a competition. It's an exercise in story telling where everyone should play an equal role. I wasn't trying to say that the rules support this:

Hi Zack,

I'm not sure I like where were going with the tone of speach ("but I'll humor you"). In the end it's not so much about a reason, you just don't want to force the seesaw? That's cool, I respect your choice - I'm hoping the tone is because on other boards theirs often a lack of respect for personal.

However, here's something to consider about 'forcing'

You've brought up a great point. As a designer, I can't truly "force" anyone to play the game a certain way, just like I can't "force" them to play it at all. I'm not holding a gun to their head, which means they can change anything about the setting, the rules, or the way the it's set up to be played. But when I hear "we want to ensure blah blah happens", it makes me think that we're looking to design the game to make it impossible (so long as they follow the rules to some degree) for a GM to run a game sans 'blah blah'. So when we talk about "ensuring the players get their turn", we're therefore making sure the seesaw effect takes place, meaning we're 'forcing' the seesaw on them.

However, I don't see how the Experience Levels encourage illusionism. By not forcing them to play bass, I leave the option of a participationism game as well.

An illusionist GM is going to run an illusionist game no matter how the game is set up. If he wants to prevent the players from having power, he'll ditch any rules, or twist the story around, or otherwise make sure that no matter what the players do, the story that he's decided upon will enevitably happen. Such is the nature of a selfish GM.

Normally, when a player is using a skill, they roll the die and their skill adjustment to the die, trying to meet or exceed the target number. Occasionally, failure is not an option. The hero absolutely must shoot the rope that's going to hang the sheriff of the town, who is the only person who can prove that the heroes are innocent and didn't kill that girl. So the player decides to use a Focus Point. Instead of just rolling the Control Die plus his Fire Arms Skill Adjustment, he now gets to add an additional D8 to his roll. He rolls the die, and gets 15, plus 6 for his Skill, making the total 21. He then rolls his D8 Focus die and gets a 7, making his total now 28! He fires his revolved and the bullet splits the rope, saving the sheriff!

What happen, was the play's Fire Arms Skill essentially became legendary for that one, single roll. Instead of just having a 6 in Fire Arms, he got to add a D8 to his Skill Adjustment, so his Fire Arms Skill became 13 for that one shot. In this fashion, we've achieved what you were suggesting, just on a smaller, more controlled scale. Am I wrong?

The more I think about it, the more I begin to believe that the seesaw is a bad thing. If you look at it like that, then in each extreme (either the GM in command, or the players in control) one side or the other is playing a background role. If the seesaw exists at all, why shouldn't it be always at an equal level

Hi Callan,

I'm not sure I like where were going with the tone of speach ("but I'll humor you"). In the end it's not so much about a reason, you just don't want to force the seesaw? That's cool, I respect your choice - I'm hoping the tone is because on other boards theirs often a lack of respect for personal.

Another example - if there is a mountain in front of you, your not being forced to see it - it's just a fact. There is no force involved - it's just reality

Well, a player who wants participationism doesn't want power - these levels start giving him power. He's going to be "What, what am I supposed to do with what I've been given? If I roll a skill, I'll be wielding in game power and I said I didn't want that"

Perhaps there could be some notes on how to correctly use the skills in a participationist game - like the gun skill isn't used so much to shoot, but roll it and if you pass you describe how cooly your character holds it and how graceful he is in its use? How would GM/player advice for a participationist game sound to you?

I agree. But in a horrible validation of system matters, a game system can be designed to help ensure he doesn't have to twist as much story, or ditch as many rules or whatever to get illusionism.

Look, I'm probably a bit of a burned out player. But if your customers are a 'flock' I think your building in more room for 'wolves' to sneak in than you'd want. You were interested if there were any probs with the level system, so I thought I'd say that.

Sorry. Imagine that a NPC had to prove his innocence to the PC's by shooting the rope to save the sheriff, and the reason he's proving himself is because of the players 'hunt men down' skill is at legendary - there's no escape, he must save the sheriff! That's the players at the high end of the seesaw.

When I mentioned the seesaw, it wasn't my recommendation, just seemed to fit what you were doing. I wasn't interested in pushing you away from the seesaw idea, even if I don't favour it. There are other options - would you like to discuss them? If so, start off a new thread (I think that fits the forum policy - it helps keep threads neat and focused. You can link to this thread from the new one anyway :) ). I'd love to talk about the two paragraphs before the quote :)

That was good discussion, I think we've sort of split into two parallel discussions, one is about power levels which are an "ephemera" a tiny aspect of the game that serves to implement the designers vision, the other is about player empowerment which is a choice at the level of the shared imaginary space.  Maybe Callan's right and we should start a second thread about player empowerment in Decay, so for now I'll just stick to discussing the ephemera.  It's a little difficult since the player empowerment decision is sort of above the ephemera, choices you make there will basically decide for you what technical rules you should put in the game.

One of the things Callan brought up was the old forge saying "system does matter."  A lot of roleplayers claim the system doesn't matter and that people will just change the rules to match what they want to play.  There's a little mistake in that line, system refers to how the players actually play, rules just refers to what the designer writes down.  If the players modify the game they are now playing with a variant of the desingers intended system.  A worthy design goal is to forsee the ways people might want to play the game and write the rules so they don't have to change them.  The other common meme is to think that players changing rules means something like, "this group rolls 4d6 drop the lowest instead of 3d6 for attributes."  This is certainly a rules change, but so is "once, just once, the GM fudged a roll to save my character," and "the rules don't say whether your supposed to share in character observations, but our group has decided it's not fair," or even "we use in character and out of character voices." A good set of rules is very self-aware, it was written with experience as to what happens during a game, and covers the eventualities. 

So lets talk about powerlevels.

1. Power levels empower players--
First the GM writes a couple of adventures that the players participate in.  Then the GM writes no more adventures, the players now have enough power and knowledge to decide what they want to do in the setting on their own.  They choose where to go, and the GM just rolls for the setting, he doesn't plan a story, the other players are already writting a story about their characters that needs no input from him.  The GM just uses the detailed setting to react to what they are doing.

Things to think about:
How many hours of play before the switch and how much advancement?
Will new characters start at the bottom, or at the previous level (ie. if you start a new set of characters will they have to work their way up seeing the parts of the game they've already explored)?
How will players learn about the setting? Will the GM just hand them the book to represent the players in game knowledge?

2.  Power levels divide the world into zones--
Certain areas are more confusing for players who haven't learned enough about the game.  Since the setting is shared among many groups, it is also important that certain areas be resistant to change.  Power levels are used to divide the world into certain areas with similar statistical challenges.

Things to think about:
Are there better ways to divide the world into zones? eg. lack of vehicals, radiation storms etc.
What will be the consequences of high level characters in low level zones, what will be the consequences of low level characters in high level zones?
What will be the consequences of players choosing to play high level characters from the outset?

3.  Power levels allow the players to impact the GM's story--
Not to be confused with 1, in this case players can rewrite the planned adventure if their power level is high enough to ignore obstacles the GM might deploy.  This may either arise from excessive player power or low GM power.

Things to think about:
Will this cause conflict?
If the players leave the GM's planned adventure, what will they do?
Why must the GM generate an adventure?

4.  Power levels are inheriently enjoyable--
Players gain a sense of accomplishment by becoming more powerful, even in cases where statistically, challenges remains the same.  In essence, higher numbers are preferable to lower numbers, and growing numbers are best.

Things to think about:
Does this hold true for everyone?  What about players who just want to explore?
Will this encourage competition between players?
Will the game be able to focus on other modes of fun if the players are constatnly striving for advancement?
http://www.progressquest.com/

5.  Power levels are realistic--
Observations of our world tell us that certain skills are not evenly distributed and that skills can be improved with time and effort.  The imaginary space of the game should reflect this.

Things to think about:
How does realism make the game more fun?
Can this be implemented without power benchmarks, just different starting points?

6.  Power levels are in most RPGs.
Power levels are extremely common in RPGs, therefore must be valuable to a game.

TtTA:
Why should something that worked elsewhere work in your game since your game is different in other respects?
Do powerlevels work in other games, or are they only doing it because of number 6 as well?

Fantastic post Majidah, I hope you don't mind if link to and re-post it often. You summed up the "loot and level" issue thoroughly. (I'm playing ProgressQuest for the first time as I type this and laughing my ass off. Sweet parody.)

Zack:

Straight, simple answer to your original question: Yes, using power-levels as a cap to force PCs to diversify sounds like a good idea. However ...

Honestly, I have a big chip on my shoulder right now. I've spent many an hour in MMOs frustrated because they offer little but "loot and level". The designer part of my brain can't get around the idea that the *last* thing one should do as a designer of an MMO is partition players into little boxes. I know you're not building an MMO, just letting you know to take what I write with a big grain of salt.

As a tabletop (or chat-based) RPG designer, you will provide a large chunk of the content players and GMs will use in their adventures. Level-based systems should be careful to avoid a common pitfall: PC's should never out-level content. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. If you have the resources to create, say, 100 monsters, why would you divide them into 5 sets so that players can only choose from 20 at a time? Won't your game be less rich?

Further, one of the reasons for using power-levels is "the sense of advancement," last week I could only defeat X ... now I can defeat X+1. Yay me! I rock! Except that implies I'm still fighting X today (so I can see how easy it has become) and that last week I at least got a taste of X+1 such that I knew it was out-of-my-league. In my book, this requires having all of the content available all of the time, else you lose the sense of empowerment and it just becomes a grind. Caveat emptor.

The solution of course is to make sure that for Green PCs fighting a Green rad-scorp hatchling is a "hard" challenge and for Legendary PCs fighting 10 rad-scorp hatchlings is an "easy" challenge. All content is available, all the time. This implies a fairly shallow power-curve. Easier said than done, and the more complex your combat system, the more difficult it will be. Are power-levels worth the effort for your game? What are you giving up by devoting dev-cycles to make all this work?

Also consider: You want exciting challenges for your players. You also want variety, with some "easy" challenges, some "moderate" and some "hard". All of this takes a lot of planning and play-testing, hopefully with real players bent on "breaking" your system and exposing any flaws or loopholes. As soon as you introduce power levels, you *multiply* the effort needed to create all of this content. Please, please don't assume it will all just "scale". In practice, it very seldom does. (And the very options and tweaks that make a game interesting are the ones which scale poorly.) Again, is it worth it? what are you gaining and what are you giving up?

I really like the direction the discussion has turned. I've been thinking about how to start a thread for the idea of player empowerment, and I'm getting there.

On the topic of power levels:

I'm going to answer your TtTA with my own ideas and opinions. I would really like to hear everyone elses opinions as well, if only to see where we agree and where we disagree.

I'll start with the first three, since my time is kind of limited at the moment.

1. Power Levels Empower the Players:

How many hours of play before the switch and how much advancement?

Answer: At the current design juncture, characters recieve about 12-16 XP per middle length (about two hours) moderately difficult (involved a significant amount of challenges) adventure in which the Crew was largely successful. If the Crew failed in their goals, the XP award will be more along the lines of 6-8. If they achieved extraordinary success, 17-20. Assuming they always achieve modest success, that means they'll reach the next Experience Level (each EL takes 100 XP to level up) after approximately 12 hours of play. The Arbiter (GM) can speed up, or slow down this process by awarding more or less XP respectively.

From our point of view, statistical advancement has no concrete influence on when the Arbiter can hand the reigns to the Players and let them begin controlling the path of the story.

Question: Do you feel that the standard amount of time is too short, or too long to make a significant jump?

Personal Note: Most of the games I've GMed, the session lasted anywhere from 2-4 hours, making ascending an EL possible within three sessions. Originally, the intent of each EL was to represent a very significant jump in power, possibly the equivilent of 4-5 levels in D&D. 

Will new characters start at the bottom, or at the previous level (ie. if you start a new set of characters will they have to work their way up seeing the parts of the game they've already explored)?

Answer: In some cases, groups who start with Elite characters, played for a while, then decided to create new characters, they may choose to start the new characters off at the Green EL. In other cases, people who started with Regular character, played for a while, then decided to create new characters may start at the Elite EL. The choice is up to them. They may create less experienced, more experienced, or equally experienced new characters.

As far as how the exploration of the world will play out, ideally they'll be inclined to explore completely new areas, never explored by their previous characters. Alternatively, they may choose to create a Crew that centers around a different aspect of the game, such as going from a Crew who was based in the Outlands to a Crew who lives in the Megaplex, or going from street thugs to corporate special forces, or other changes along those lines. They might create a group of psionic characters as opposed to mundane characters, or perhaps they make evil characters instead of do-gooders.

The 'zones' that I described above are enormous. It's impossible for a Crew to explore every inch of every zone. Therefore, a group of new characters exploring the Western Badlands will have just as much to discover, even if this is their second set of characters exploring this zone. At least, thats the way we're trying to design it.

How will players learn about the setting? Will the GM just hand them the book to represent the players in game knowledge?

Answer: Handing them the book is one option to get the acquainted with the setting, though probably not the most enjoyable. One possible way to introduce new players to the setting is to create the first adventure around the "new guy" or "amnesia" principle. This is, the characters that they are playing are just as clueless about where they are as the Players themselves. This gives the Arbiter a good reason to explain things, in game, to the characters that will educate the players about the setting.

Question: In what other ways could the Players learn about the setting?

2.  Power levels divide the world into zones

Are there better ways to divide the world into zones? eg. lack of vehicals, radiation storms etc.


Answer: The regions of the setting aren't completely designed to force the players to level up before they're able to explore there. The biggest thing that's stopping them is the difficulty of their Survival Skill checks. Naturally, some areas are just more difficult to survive in than others, and this is illustrated by preset Target Numbers designated for each region. This can worked around by supplying the Crew with the things they need to negate the difficulties, or at least help them deal with them. For example, transversing an Emission Zone is extremely difficult, what with all the radiation, lack of clean water and food, and the mutated creatures that don't take kindly to strangers. If the Arbiter's story supplies the Crew with a dune buggy, RadSuits, some decent weaponry, and a trunk full of pure water and uncontimated food, the players can explore this area with relatively little difficulty.

Question: How would you suggest seperating the zones better?

What will be the consequences of high level characters in low level zones, what will be the consequences of low level characters in high level zones?

Answer: I'm not exactly sure what kind of adverse effects can happen.

Question: Have you thought of any?

What will be the consequences of players choosing to play high level characters from the outset?

Answer: The only forseen side effect of players starting with high level characters is the idea that they won't have as much room to advance, but on the other hand, they'll be able to experience more of the high level content right away, sort of balancing out the equation. Other than that, there's the risk that the players will become "spoiled" and only want to play high level characters from then on, never taking the opportunity to experience being the low-man on the totem pole.

3. Power levels allow the players to impact the GM's story

Will this cause conflict?

Answer: In most cases, the GM will have designed the challenges within the adventure to reflect the character's high level of power. If for some reason this isn't the case, and the Crew breezes by all the obstacles in their way, the only conflict is perhaps that they'll reach the end of the GM's planned adventure far too quickly and easily, in which case the GM will need to either elaborate, or the session might be cut short. If the adventure is too easy, this will award the players less XP, who might feel they're getting jipped out of "advancement juice".

Question: Is this the type conflict you're referring to?

If the players leave the GM's planned adventure, what will they do?

Answer: If they leave the preset scenarios, the GM's goal is to either subtley nudge them back on track, or to "play bass" and let the players decide where to go and what to do.

Why must the GM generate an adventure?

Answer: In the case of very independant players, creating an adventure may not be neccesary. Simply giving them a starting point is enough for them to get their footing and starting creating their own adventure, with the GM just reacting to what they do. On the other hand, some players rely on the GM to supply the story, preferring to follow along with something that seems more tailored and 'scripted', rather then random and off the top of the group's head.

Question: What are your thoughts on this question?

While I'd like to continue, I've got some friends coming over and my time is short. I'll try to finish some time tonight though. Thanks for the insight Majidah!

Whew! Finally, I have some time to finish what I'd started.

4.  Power levels are inheriently enjoyable

Does this hold true for everyone?  What about players who just want to explore?

Answer: In the case of players who don't enjoy advancing, and would rather simply explore the setting without having to worry about being challenged and overcoming obstacles, the best way to supply them with the experience they're looking for is to explain to the GM that he should be sensitive to what the Players are looking for in a game and design the adventures in the campaign with this idea in mind. The GM can then spend the majority of his preparation time worrying about what sort of places and people the Players can discover, rather then having to think about obstacles and enemies for them to defeat.

Question: Does anyone have a better suggestion on how to do this?

Will this encourage competition between players?

Answer: In most cases no. One of the established ideas is that each character in the group should specialize in a different area then the other characters in the group, to encourage team work and diversity, rather then having six guys walking around with identicle skill sets. Having a diverse group allows them to overcome more diverse obstacles, and also allows the GM to plan adventures that will challenge the players in a variety of ways. Of course, some people are more competitive then others, and competition is unavoidable in some cases, regardless of the existance of Experience Levels. Any game that use statistics at all runs the risk of having competition between players. Even games that lack character statistics can host competition, when one player wants to have better equipment, or a more famous character, or wants to accomplish more or discover more.

Will the game be able to focus on other modes of fun if the players are constatnly striving for advancement?


Answer: Of course! The are no limits on where the fun starts and where it ends. One set of Players might be a group of superstar musicians, where the game focuses on the toils and tribulations of being super famous in the materialistic, consumer world of the megaplex. Their adventures may be the experiences they have on tour, while never having to worry about XP or Experience Levels. The existance of Experience Levels doesn't produce the need to 'strive' for advancement.The Players can't really try harder to advance quicker. The rate of advancement is up to the GM, and it could be a slow, or a fast road.

Question: If there were no experience levels and just statistics ungoverned by a system that limits how high a particular skill can be raised to based on relative experience, would urge to advance not be there still?

5.  Power levels are realistic

How does realism make the game more fun?


Answer: Decay isn't hard set in realism, as the setting and the content of the setting illustrates. However, providing a sense of realism gives the players and the GM a feeling that the world they're dedicating themselves to for a few hours every weekend is living and breathing place, not a cartoon or a fairy tail. Realism adds to the tone of dark, gritty, opressive horror, because what's scarier then the feeling that your character is vulnerable? Does it make it more fun? Well, we hope. It's hard to say. On one hand, some players may not like the sense of realism, wishing their characters were a little more larger then life, and not so vulnerable. However, we feel that those players may enjoy playing a different game then Decay. On the other hand, some players may be intrigued by the idea that their characters are more along the lines of batman then superman (this is a very loose analogy). Of course, the element of realism can be tweaked easily by nudging the difficulty of certain obstables up or down (down being less realistic, and up being more realistic).

Question: How do you make a game both realistic and unrealistic at the same time, to appeal to both types of players?

Can this be implemented without power benchmarks, just different starting points?

Answer: Sure, but Power Levels serve other functions than adding to the sense of realism. I'll talk about this in a moment.

6.  Power levels are in most RPGs.

Why should something that worked elsewhere work in your game since your game is different in other respects?


Answer: While there are a plethora of new-age RPGs out there that explore alternate ways to handle the issues brought about by a role-playing environment, Decay is fundamentally a traditional adventure game. The question of why do Power Levels have a place in Decay is almost the same as why do dice have a place in Decay. They serve a purpose that's common in RPGs. Dice serve the purpose of creating random numbers that represent the natural idea of chance. While there are other ways to come up with random numbers, none are as familiar or effective. So too, there are other ways to judge a character's power relative to the setting and other characters in the setting, but none are as simple and effective.

Do powerlevels work in other games, or are they only doing it because of number 6 as well?


Answer: From my experiences with P&P RPGs and Videogame RPGs, achievement and leveling has always given me a personal sense of accomplishment. Take Oblivion and the new computer game S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Both have similar modes of play: You start out a novice in a big giant world where you explore and take jobs, gaining reputation as a hero and so on. While Stalker's atmosphere is far superior to Oblivion, the only sense of accomplishment I get from it is attaining a new gun, artifact, or suit of armor. There is no advancement what-so-ever. On the hand, while Oblivion isn't as 'cool' (IMO) as Stalker, I do get a feeling of accomplishment when my Blades Skill reaches the next level, and now I can do a cool new move.

Perhaps some games are doing it 'because everybody else is too'. However, we're doing it because it serves a function that we feel needs to be served.

Okay, so here's something else to think about.

As of right now, Experience Levels serve these functions:
1) Set a limit on how high a character's skill can be, to prevent 'maxing out' and allow for a sense of accomplishment when you level up and the cap is raised.
2) Give Players and the GM starting benchmarks or packages, to provide a simple way to make very experienced and well equipped characters right off the bat without 'leveling' them manually.
3) Provide a discription has to how powerful the characters are, so Official Prewritten adventures can be tailored to varying degrees of character expertise (ie, "This Adventure is Best Suited to Character of the Veteran Experience Level").
4) Offer a relative benchmark for online characters, so GMs can run adventures for "Green" or "Elite" Crews and keep track of the relative power of their online players.

If we were to eliminate Function 1, how would that effect the game?

To John

I'm glade to see some one new join the discussion. I was beginning to think that the thread was too voluminous for people to bother reading and posting their opinions.

Honestly, I have a big chip on my shoulder right now. I've spent many an hour in MMOs frustrated because they offer little but "loot and level". The designer part of my brain can't get around the idea that the *last* thing one should do as a designer of an MMO is partition players into little boxes. I know you're not building an MMO, just letting you know to take what I write with a big grain of salt.

As a tabletop (or chat-based) RPG designer, you will provide a large chunk of the content players and GMs will use in their adventures. Level-based systems should be careful to avoid a common pitfall: PC's should never out-level content. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. If you have the resources to create, say, 100 monsters, why would you divide them into 5 sets so that players can only choose from 20 at a time? Won't your game be less rich?

Further, one of the reasons for using power-levels is "the sense of advancement," last week I could only defeat X ... now I can defeat X+1. Yay me! I rock! Except that implies I'm still fighting X today (so I can see how easy it has become) and that last week I at least got a taste of X+1 such that I knew it was out-of-my-league. In my book, this requires having all of the content available all of the time, else you lose the sense of empowerment and it just becomes a grind. Caveat emptor.

The solution of course is to make sure that for Green PCs fighting a Green rad-scorp hatchling is a "hard" challenge and for Legendary PCs fighting 10 rad-scorp hatchlings is an "easy" challenge. All content is available, all the time. This implies a fairly shallow power-curve. Easier said than done, and the more complex your combat system, the more difficult it will be. Are power-levels worth the effort for your game? What are you giving up by devoting dev-cycles to make all this work?

Also consider: You want exciting challenges for your players. You also want variety, with some "easy" challenges, some "moderate" and some "hard". All of this takes a lot of planning and play-testing, hopefully with real players bent on "breaking" your system and exposing any flaws or loopholes. As soon as you introduce power levels, you *multiply* the effort needed to create all of this content. Please, please don't assume it will all just "scale". In practice, it very seldom does. (And the very options and tweaks that make a game interesting are the ones which scale poorly.) Again, is it worth it? what are you gaining and what are you giving up?

Time for a mighty answering.  I think we're both pretty much on the same page, and it's a good page, but I'll itemize before I discuss big stuff.

Sentience wrote:
1. Power Levels Empower the Players:

How many hours of play before the switch and how much advancement?


From our point of view, statistical advancement has no concrete influence on when the Arbiter can hand the reigns to the Players and let them begin controlling the path of the story.

Question: Do you feel that the standard amount of time is too short, or too long to make a significant jump?

How will players learn about the setting? Will the GM just hand them the book to represent the players in game knowledge?

Answer: Handing them the book is one option to get the acquainted with the setting, though probably not the most enjoyable. One possible way to introduce new players to the setting is to create the first adventure around the "new guy" or "amnesia" principle. This is, the characters that they are playing are just as clueless about where they are as the Players themselves. This gives the Arbiter a good reason to explain things, in game, to the characters that will educate the players about the setting.

Question: In what other ways could the Players learn about the setting?

2.  Power levels divide the world into zones

Are there better ways to divide the world into zones? eg. lack of vehicals, radiation storms etc.


Question: How would you suggest seperating the zones better?

What will be the consequences of high level characters in low level zones, what will be the consequences of low level characters in high level zones?

Question: Have you thought of any?

3. Power levels allow the players to impact the GM's story

Will this cause conflict?

Answer: In most cases, the GM will have designed the challenges within the adventure to reflect the character's high level of power. If for some reason this isn't the case, and the Crew breezes by all the obstacles in their way, the only conflict is perhaps that they'll reach the end of the GM's planned adventure far too quickly and easily, in which case the GM will need to either elaborate, or the session might be cut short. If the adventure is too easy, this will award the players less XP, who might feel they're getting jipped out of "advancement juice".

Question: Is this the type conflict you're referring to?

Why must the GM generate an adventure?

Answer: In the case of very independant players, creating an adventure may not be neccesary. Simply giving them a starting point is enough for them to get their footing and starting creating their own adventure, with the GM just reacting to what they do. On the other hand, some players rely on the GM to supply the story, preferring to follow along with something that seems more tailored and 'scripted', rather then random and off the top of the group's head.

Question: What are your thoughts on this question?

Thanks for the advice Pat! I appreciate it.

I've started a new thread focusing on the seesaw, shown here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=23685.0.

Please post your comments!