Quote from: estar;643134If the game was truly a simulation of a "real" world then it would include all the little bits that people to brush up, hone, or learn various skills and skill check would work. But RPGs don't and very properly does not simulate every minute of every day.

Indeed.

Along those lines is the simple fact that in the real world, even combat skills are not for the most part 'learned on the job'. They are extensively trained and practiced before being used under serious conditons.

A sniper just out of training is a *good* shot. A Navy pilot having completed training is a *good* pilot. Experience may will improve them (or it may well not) in some areas, while age will hinder them in others- for the same skills.

Hawkings didn't become good at math by preventing the rise of Cthulhu. He did it by doing math problems under safe and boring conditions.

The subject is complex and isn't one that can be covered by simple skill checks.

Linking skill improvement to adventures isn't really about simulation at all, it's about rewarding play. And frankly rewards are best kept simple and in line with the desires of the players- not the god of Simulation.

Quote from: The Traveller;642985This is the thing though, the way it works is largely arbitrary, always has been, just like the rest of the half assed mechanics in D&D. All of these can be justified with enormously elaborate  essays, in the same way that you can justify anything with enormously elaborate essays, but it doesn't make them any less half assed.

Well your sentiment is why Chivarly & Sorcery and Runequest were developed. The result wasn't D&D's demise but an expansion in the variety of types of RPGs.

You are trying objectively say X is better than Y in terms of RPG design when it is a preference issue.

1) You claim D&D design was arbitrarily designed. However its documented history show that it developed by choices based on actual play and what worked and what didn't work.

2) You claim that skill based advancement is objectively more intuitive than level based advancement despite being told that people think in level of advancements all the time.

3) You criticize levels wholesale yet when you talk about specifics it about how you advance in levels i.e. gold for experience not the levels themselves.

4) You ignore the fact that many skill based games offer packages, templates, profession. That they also offer follow-on packages you can add to your character. Which in spirit replicates the level system of D&D.

5) That the hobby and market hasn't agreed with your conclusions since the beginning of its existence. D&D and its variants has never been toggled from its perch as the world's most popular roleplaying game. When the latest D&D proved unpopular what knocked it off its perch? Pathfinder a D&D variant. While many mock mass appeal it does hold its own truth, stuff with mass appeal work because they get things right not because that they get things wrong.

Quote from: The Traveller;643139I disagree that mechanical rewards don't drive player actions. If there's a spell they can't cast or a princess that can't be rescued because the resident ogre mage is too tough, they are going to want to level up and meet the challenge.

These rewards and levels are deeply and intrinsically mechanically linked in D&D and derivatives - there are things you just cannot do at a low level, and it's perfectly natural for players to want to do it all. So they will metagame one way or another to advance their characters.

And levels are in no way neccessary, in my system you start out quite competent, and while skills do advance, a new character joining the group isn't going to be out of place beside a three year veteran character. If you want better skills, practise them or pay a master to train you, if you want a certain spell, learn it from someone or something, if you want more hit points you're out of luck, buy bigger armour. It works really well.

Your example doesn't work for me -- in the games I've run (levels or not), the players would probably respond to an above level challenge in a huge variety of ways before leveling up so they could beat it.

They could

• Ransom her back
• Hire an an army to rescue her
• Stage a distraction while the thief sneaks in and rescues her
• Pretend to be tougher than they are and try to intimidate the Ogre Magi into releasing her
• Find the OM's natural enemies and develop an alliance of some kind to pressure the OM into giving her back
• Attack the Ogre Magi, but do so in a way that amplifies their abilities (e.g. an ambush) so they can defeat him
• Etc, etc, etc.

All of these are better than leveling up since leveling up takes time and takes them away from the Ogre-Princess scenario... and while they're off leveling, things could "progress" (e.g. Princess for Dinner).

To be clear, I'm good with levels, and I'm good with no levels. The game I'm running this weekend doesn't have them. The long campaign I ended a couple of years ago did (and the players went from Level 0 to Level 11). My experience is that they don't actually make all that much of a difference in how people engage with the game.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;643132True. There's a continuum though and while we could argue about where to draw the line, past a certain point the term gets diluted to the point it becomes useless - so I'd prefer not to put the line there. No point arguing with people using different terms, though.

In math, if one formula produces the same outcome as another, you label it A=B and go on to the next question.

That's almost the case here, and all Level vs. Point System does is define the details of the method. The outcome (especially with all the hybrid systems these days) aren't that far apart.


Now the details do matter. And I don't feel that HERO System (Points) produces the same results as Age of Heroes in all ways. Age of Heroes is self-regulating and will produce suitable characters no matter what as long as the rules are followed. Meanwhile HERO System requires a lot of effort on the GM's part to make sure what's created fits his campaign and world.

The final outcome is identical, but the amount of work getting there is very different indeed.

Side Note: The advantage of HERO is that it's less work to create a new standard for a new campaign and world. I'd need a new campaign supplement with new classes and abilities to use AoH for sci-fi, for HERO- I just need the core book as normal.

Quote from: estar;643138Apprentice, Journeyman, Master
Med Student, Resident, Doctor
Private, Corporal, Sergeant
High School, College, Graduate School
Rookie, Cop, Detective, Lieutenant, Chief
Acolyte, Priest, High Priest
and so on

I've already mentioned these so you're actually making my point for me. These are collections of skills, you don't advance in them by abstract actions, you advance by using the skills until your skills meet a certain standard. And once again, these work just as well in non level systems as systems that use levels.

Metagaming of one sort or another is the inevitable result of too much abstraction. I do not think that is a good thing.

Quote from: estar;643138Simply not true, D&D levels originated in Chainmail convention of referring to a Hero as being worth 4 figures, and a Super-Hero worth 8 figures combined with the five different wizards levels in the fantasy supplement. Arneson expanded on that which was incorporated in Gygax's D&D draft.

This is documented and discussed in detail in John Peterson's Playing at the World in section 3.2.3.1

Sounds fairly pulled out of a hat to me. Don't forget we're talking about a game where the combat rules were based on Arneson's civil war game, Ironclads, which was about ship to ship battles. This was not a well planned endeavour.

Quote from: estar;6431382E was well after D&D secured it dominance.

Perhaps I should have clarified, the massive volume of material granted D&D its momentum in later years. It gained initial dominance because it was the market. This isn't like someone inventing a new kind of toaster, it's someone inventing the concept of bread. Being first to market doesn't guarantee dominance, which is what you seem to think I'm saying, being the market does.

If you're trying to say D&D persisted because of its kickass ruleset, well I merrily disagree.

Quote from: estar;643138While late 70s D&D had a lot of material compared to its rivals which enabled to remain dominant that it combined a straightforward to learn set of rules that were easily customized with house rules. But the killer app that truly kept D&D at the top was the simplicity of the dungeon for novice referees. Just make a maze with rooms, number them, write down their contents, and play. Not other adventure form that D&D rivals tried to promote comes close in simplicity and expandability as the dungeon that was at the heart of D&D.

What do dungeons have to do with anything?

Quote from: The Traveller;643139These rewards and levels are deeply and intrinsically mechanically linked in D&D and derivatives - there are things you just cannot do at a low level, and it's perfectly natural for players to want to do it all. So they will metagame one way or another to advance their characters.

Or you, as the referee, can treat levels as representing training and experience and the resulting D&D campaign runs no different from a metagame standpoint than a GURPS campaign. Something that I have done in actual play for the past 6 years and still doing today.

If it is a problem then it is the referee that is the source of the issues and he needs to fix how he runs the campaign and stop blaming the rules.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146I've already mentioned these so you're actually making my point for me. These are collections of skills, you don't advance in them by abstract actions, you advance by using the skills until your skills meet a certain standard. And once again, these work just as well in non level systems as systems that use levels.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146Metagaming of one sort or another is the inevitable result of too much abstraction. I do not think that is a good thing.

I disagree based my experience in playing the same setting with the same players in campaigns using D&D and comparing their behavior in campaigns using GURPS, Harnmaster, Fantasy Hero.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146Sounds fairly pulled out of a hat to me. Don't forget we're talking about a game where the combat rules were based on Arneson's civil war game, Ironclads, which was about ship to ship battles. This was not a well planned endeavour.

The system of rating armor was based on Ironclads, hit points and the rest come from a variety of sources including a extrapolation of Chainmail rules from 1 hit = 1 death to 1 hit = 1d6 dmg and 1d6 hp. I refer you to the Peterson's Playing at the World section 3.2.2

Quote from: The Traveller;643146Perhaps I should have clarified, the massive volume of material granted D&D its momentum in later years. It gained initial dominance because it was the market. This isn't like someone inventing a new kind of toaster, it's someone inventing the concept of bread. Being first to market doesn't guarantee dominance, which is what you seem to think I'm saying, being the market does.

It called the First Mover advantage and it not always retained. Just because D&D created the market didn't assure it's dominance. Other factors had to come into play in order for that to happen.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146If you're trying to say D&D persisted because of its kickass ruleset, well I merrily disagree.

And the rest of the hobby disagrees with you as shown by the popularity of D&D and its variants.

Quote from: The Traveller;643146What do dungeons have to do with anything?

Because throughout the 70s, and early 80s the dungeon was promoted being THE quintessential D&D adventure and this was a key element in retaining it's first mover advantage.

Competing RPGs in a effort to distinguish themselves from D&D did not promote dungeons and their alternative wasn't as compelling. The funny thing is that often despite their effort to be different their most popular products wound up being dungeons like the Big Rubble for Runequest.

Quote from: estar;643150And the rest of the hobby disagrees with you as shown by the popularity of D&D and its variants.

Popularity has many more influences than quality. And some times low quality is it's own selling point especially if the advantages of a higher quality item are beyond the user's ability to take advantage of.

IMO I think you were correct in pointing out how accessible the D&D model was to those of other games. It was almost boardgame level- enter dungeon and take loot any way you can, while the other games demanded the creation of worlds just to start.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;643140Most games allow for this, though.

In pure point based systems, there is rarely a rule requiring you to spend your earned experience (or character points or whatever) on the skills you used in that session. If anything, class and level based systems are usually lesser offenders here, because your Fighter is guaranteed to learn how to kill better with his next level, and he probably killed to get to that level...same with the wizard and casting spells and so on.

Point based systems are not linked to classes are not linked to levels. Many very popular games exist which never use experience points.

Quote from: estar;643143Well your sentiment is why Chivarly & Sorcery and Runequest were developed. The result wasn't D&D's demise but an expansion in the variety of types of RPGs.

You are trying objectively say X is better than Y in terms of RPG design when it is a preference issue.

So it's a preference issue to find the idea of 'PCs running around after piles of gold in order to be able to fall farther without dying' a bit odd?

Quote from: estar;6431431) You claim D&D design was arbitrarily designed. However its documented history show that it developed by choices based on actual play and what worked and what didn't work.

Arbitrary design in that it wasn't designed top down but rather as a collection of patches and kludges, as per the Ironclad example, whatever was handy was shoehorned in.

Quote from: estar;6431432) You claim that skill based advancement is objectively more intuitive than level based advancement despite being told that people think in level of advancements all the time.

And round and round we go...

Quote from: estar;6431433) You criticize levels wholesale yet when you talk about specifics it about how you advance in levels i.e. gold for experience not the levels themselves.

I'm starting to suspect this is more of an emotional issue for you than one which can be viewed objectively. You don't need my permission to enjoy D&D, no need to feel guilty about using levels because some randomer on the internet showed they were a kludge at best. I've already said that if people enjoy using levels, more power to them.

Quote from: estar;6431434) You ignore the fact that many skill based games offer packages, templates, profession. That they also offer follow-on packages you can add to your character. Which in spirit replicates the level system of D&D.

Ah here it is. The elaborate essay justification. And completely ignoring the point made many times already that classes are distinct from levels. You can have classes without ever using levels. I suppose you can have levels without classes but it doesn't make much sense.

You're saying that since paper and furniture both usually involve wood, a desk should be just as good at being a notebook as a notebook. You can't reduce everything to its lowest possible level and still make a meaningful comparison.

'In spirit' my muscular buttocks.

Quote from: estar;6431435) That the hobby and market hasn't agreed with your conclusions since the beginning of its existence.

And the final touch. Microsoft windows has dominated the PC OS marketplace for decades, is it the best OS? Or could there be other reasons for its dominance?

Quote from: -E.;643144To be clear, I'm good with levels, and I'm good with no levels. The game I'm running this weekend doesn't have them. The long campaign I ended a couple of years ago did (and the players went from Level 0 to Level 11). My experience is that they don't actually make all that much of a difference in how people engage with the game.

You're saying here essentially that mechanics have no effect on how people game. I'd strongly disagree with that, people behave differently in lethal game systems than in comfortable systems, they tend to pursue things that will give them an advantage (like levels) - I mean what are dungeons but great big XP generators, why would any player choose to go into them if it wasn't for the rewards.

You're basically saying human nature doesn't exist here, so eh yeah.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;643018Maybe Savage Worlds, if you squint a bit. Simplified point system, with abilities gained each 5 XP and the XP grand total giving a "Rank" which limits what abilities a character can select, like not having  a "Frenzy" edge or "Burst" power until you hit Seasoned, and having only one stat increase possible per rank.

I think Savage Worlds is a strong case of one of the differences I think gleichman is glossing over. Though there is no automatic progression on "level up" (which is more of a sign of being unambiguously level-based),  certain edges are reserved for higher levels of proficiency. Some SW settings bypass this, however.

I could see a system like Bushido being the basis of a classless lev-based system. Bushido levels serve as a modifier for otherwise point-built characters; it would be easy to strip the classes out.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;643155I think Savage Worlds is a strong case of one of the differences I think gleichman is glossing over. Though there is no automatic progression on "level up" (which is more of a sign of being unambiguously level-based),  certain edges are reserved for higher levels of proficiency. Some SW settings bypass this, however.

I don't feel that such a concern is that significant, or even special. In many point systems certain abilities are so expensive, and dependent upon good values in other areas- that only high pointed characters can make use of them and/or afford them.

Same thing, different road to get there.

Quote from: gleichman;643152Popularity has many more influences than quality. And some times low quality is it's own selling point especially if the advantages of a higher quality item are beyond the user's ability to take advantage of.

Yes this is an old debate that reaches far beyond roleplaying games as shown by by discussion people have about Apple iOS devices versus Blackberry, Android, and other competing device. Or further back VHS versus Betamax, or Windows vs Mac OS, etc, etc.

My viewpoint that a good simple design is often harder to make than good complex design with many options. D&D was lucky in that it very quickly evolved into it classic form (OD&D plus Greyhawk) which nailed the sweet spot.

Chivalry and Sorcery Third Edition had an interesting approach to levels in that you bought skills with experience points and then leveled up when you had spent enough experience to do so.  The experience level provided a brake on over development of a single skill.

Which is of course where levels tend to be a bit more realistic than a straight skill buy system.  My favorite example being the GURPS player who drops 40 points on Guns skill and then keeps dropping all their experience points into it.  True there's diminishing returns but in reality, life generally requires people to spend time doing more than one thing and attempting to cram too hard for too long frequently means hitting the wall and progressing no further.

I mostly see levels as a shiny bauble to dangle in front of my oh so distractable players.  It keeps them focused.  I like GURPS but I've seldom had a solid campaign of it.  Most of my players simply need the sense of progress levels provide.

Quote from: estar;643147Or you, as the referee, can treat levels as representing training and experience and the resulting D&D campaign runs no different from a metagame standpoint than a GURPS campaign.

Except for the part where players go hunting big piles of gold or whatever.

Quote from: estar;643150 The system of rating armor was based on Ironclads, hit points and the rest come from a variety of sources including a extrapolation of Chainmail rules from 1 hit = 1 death to 1 hit = 1d6 dmg and 1d6 hp. I refer you to the Peterson's Playing at the World section 3.2.2

Okay, I refer you to Arneson's interview:

QuoteI adopted the rules I'd done earlier for a Civil War game called Ironclads that had hit points and armor class. It meant that players had a chance to live longer and do more. They didn't care that they had hit points to keep track of because they were just keeping track of little detailed records for their character and not trying to do it for an entire army.

Quote from: estar;643150It called the First Mover advantage and it not always retained. Just because D&D created the market didn't assure it's dominance. Other factors had to come into play in order for that to happen.

What happened with D&D was very unusual, the FTMA process usually describes someone making a better type of diaper for the diaper market. In the case of RPGs, it was more like being the first one to invent the idea of board games. Technically it was the first to enter the games market with board games, but realistically that means little since the gaming market was massively fragmented, including things like sports, so basically it created its own market.

Quote from: estar;643150And the rest of the hobby disagrees with you as shown by the popularity of D&D and its variants.

By this standard once again (and again and again) microsoft windows is the best operating system ever.

Good luck with that.

Quote from: estar;643159My viewpoint that a good simple design is often harder to make than good complex design with many options.

I think the truth of that statement is limited to say the least. Which is more difficult? Making a nicely balanced and functional hammer, or making a dependable and fast sports car?

What remains hard under any conditions is getting the customer to desire your product- be it hammer or sports car.

Quote from: estar;643159D&D was lucky in that it very quickly evolved into it classic form (OD&D plus Greyhawk) which nailed the sweet spot.

Yes.

And it was luckly in that many of its low quality features appealed to the buyer. They wanted the safety and easy of HP no matter its faults, for it had one advantage- they made getting loot and killing monsters easier. And people like the easy button.