Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;929877If I practice with a sword I get better with a sword.

If I practice magic I get better at magic.

Not if you play D&D. A first level wizard can spend all of first level shooting goblins with a crossbow or hitting kobolds over the head with a staff without casting their one emergency, last resort spell. At level 2, they get better at casting spells but not at shooting a crossbow or using a staff.

Quote from: Xúc xắc;930057Not if you play D&D. A first level wizard can spend all of first level shooting goblins with a crossbow or hitting kobolds over the head with a staff without casting their one emergency, last resort spell. At level 2, they get better at casting spells but not at shooting a crossbow or using a staff.

Only if the referee is too stupid to shit unassisted.

The rules can't fix stupid.

Quote from: jhkim;930043Yes, but there are much more specific questions. i.e. A character is a wizard who currently can cast Scorching Ray. He knows that the spell Fireball exists. Does he have understanding about what he can do to learn that more powerful spell, and how long it will take to do so?

To get some contrasting ideas, for example, in Traveller if someone wanted to learn about how to operate a plasma rifle - they would take some courses in how to use it, and/or look for someone experienced as a teacher as well as qualified on the plasma rifle. (For those who don't know, Traveller has no experience for adventuring like many games. Instead, characters can use money and time to train.)

However, characters in other games don't generally do that. For example, depending on the edition and campaign, there are different things the wizard can do to learn Fireball - gain gold, fight monsters, or just generally overcome challenges. Does the wizard understand that connection, though?

1: The wizard may not exactly know fireball exists. They may be developing it on their own if its a personal spell rather than a found one. This is the stuff going on in the background and downtime. The PCs are unaware of EXP and are unaware of levels. (usually. I know some DMs will tell the players straight up. "You see a level 5 fighter" while others will say "You see a barbarian in chainmail confidently brandishing a longsword at you.". The difference between "You hit level 5. Add a new spell to your list." vs "Your hard work has payed off. You have made a breakthrough in your research and perfected a new spell called Fireball. Your research into Meteor Swarm is still a long ways off though."

2: Not exactly the best of comparisons. Star Frontiers might better fit. It has an EXP system. But in SF the exp is really just skill points that you spend to learn new techniques or advance your learning in areas you allready have acquired. Some skills you can acquire through practice. Again one must assume that the PC has been tinkering in that area prior. Other skills require you to train and pay a fee. As noted before. Some versions of D&D and other RPGs dont have that. You just "level up" or gain a new skill out of the blue. And again it is up to the DM and/or players to interpret that.

3: Probably not. No more than knowing that it takes practice and sometimes hands on experience to gain expertise in something or to get better in what you allready know. They do not know they need 500 more EXP to go to level 5. They dont even know what a level is. They might not even know that going out and doing stuff will advance their progress. They just go out and do stuff for whatever reasons.

Keep in mind that in D&D advancement in levels can vary massively for PCs in the same class simply because of how and where they adventure and what they are facing and even the time frame involved. One wizard might take several delves of zapping goblins to just make level 2, while another might shoot to level 3 in the same span due to surviving encounters with an ogre some owlbrears and talking his way out of an encounter with some gnolls and so on due to both the encounter itself and exp from loot or negotiation.

Quote from: Xúc xắc;930057Not if you play D&D. A first level wizard can spend all of first level shooting goblins with a crossbow or hitting kobolds over the head with a staff without casting their one emergency, last resort spell. At level 2, they get better at casting spells but not at shooting a crossbow or using a staff.

Um... Actually the wizard DOES get better with those as they level up. Because you know? The to-hit chance gets better?
You wont see a signifigant increase. But the Wizard/MU is indeed getting better with swinging that staff over time... The fighter just sees that improvement faster.

Well, I prefer slow organic advancement.  Big Traveller fan here

But I've always liked Chivalry and Sorcery 3rd edition's skill scape (TM)* system in which you spent experience to increase skills and when your total experience spent crossed a level threshold you leveled up and could then increase skills one more level.  Really liked C&S3 in many ways but sadly a twinked out first level character could one hit kill the supposedly terrifying trolls pretty reliably.  It's not even hard really, buy 25 strength, max out your skill in mauls.

I didn't really like it enough to use it in The Arcane Confabulation, but it's easy enough to do as an option as TAC has a rigid relationship between skill costs and experience points.  You can even do variable level costs instead of the standard thousand as a level really just qualifies you to spend 5 points on an attribute and 3 more points on every skill and category.

*Remember the nineties?  Back when some people thought game mechanics had financial value.  Superstitious fools!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930055Who cares?

The person posing the question?

We each have things that we want to make sense in our games. They just aren't all the same things for each of us.

Quote from: Bren;930067The person posing the question?

We each have things that we want to make sense in our games. They just aren't all the same things for each of us.

It has been an interesting thread. Something different without the pre-set positions people tend to have on subjects.

Yeah, it's not like I'm losing sleep over this either way - but I think it's interesting to consider. It came up for me because my PCs are starting to get to the point of doing more long-term planning, and what their ambitions are.

QuoteFor example, depending on the edition and campaign, there are different things the wizard can do to learn Fireball - gain gold, fight monsters, or just generally overcome challenges. Does the wizard understand that connection, though?

Quote from: Omega;930061Probably not. No more than knowing that it takes practice and sometimes hands on experience to gain expertise in something or to get better in what you allready know. They do not know they need 500 more EXP to go to level 5. They dont even know what a level is. They might not even know that going out and doing stuff will advance their progress. They just go out and do stuff for whatever reasons.

Keep in mind that in D&D advancement in levels can vary massively for PCs in the same class simply because of how and where they adventure and what they are facing and even the time frame involved. One wizard might take several delves of zapping goblins to just make level 2, while another might shoot to level 3 in the same span due to surviving encounters with an ogre some owlbrears and talking his way out of an encounter with some gnolls and so on due to both the encounter itself and exp from loot or negotiation.

Yes, I was already clear that no one has the character knowing they need 500 XP to get to level 5. But the wizard *could* have the understanding "If I go fight some more monsters now rather than sit at home and study, then I'll learn more powerful spells."  

Much like a cleric doesn't know about hit points or armor class, but they might know that their Bless spell will help those affected fight and defend, but won't improve their skills.

From an in-character point of view, that's kind of important for how the PCs view their lives and what they're expecting to get out of their adventuring.

In Earthdawn, each "Class" ("Discipline") is a loose collection of members of the same cult/secret-society(or sub-secret society for Warrior and Mage orders).

Thus, talking about your "Discipline" in-character is found very often in the fiction, and the rank in a Discipline - ("Levels" -> "Circles") is often talked about in the legends of past and present heroes. Earthdawn Disciplines go up to 15 Circles each, so it's about a 2 D&D Level = 1 Earthdawn Circle scale (using the old BECMI leveling scale).

Quote from: jhkim;930090But the wizard *could* have the understanding "If I go fight some more monsters now rather than sit at home and study, then I'll learn more powerful spells."  

Much like a cleric doesn't know about hit points or armor class, but they might know that their Bless spell will help those affected fight and defend, but won't improve their skills.

From an in-character point of view, that's kind of important for how the PCs view their lives and what they're expecting to get out of their adventuring.

This is stuff up to the players and DM to decide. Is some manner of research required? Or is it just an epiphany out of the blue? Is it knowledge passed down from a veteran? Is it regulated by some sort of adventurers guild or even the gods?

It may even explain why NPCs may be lower level than youd expect simply because they arent out there adventuring. Wizards in labs researching spells and fighters working the docks but not gaining any EXP in the mean time. The wizard in the lab DOESNT know they need to go out and adventure. And so may stay at home who knows how long? Eventually the PC may realize they need field research or rare ingredients or even just go out and find some ruins with the lost knowledge. And thus eventually they gain that EXP unless they opt to hire someone else to.

So make of it what you will.

Personally when playing a Wizard type the spells picked up for free are spells my character has been researching or trying to complete from fragments, or bits of knowledge and advice from a mentor. So during time camping or in town my characters jotting down notes or hitting local libraries in the hopes of gleaning some breakthrough. With a Fighter type I might play it much the same. Or just play it as inspirations learned from the school of hard knocks.

My take on this:

Characters must be aware of the existence of something like character levels.  At a minimum they are aware of an implicit character level - they know that some fighters are more skilled at fighting, and that some mages know more spells and can cast more per day, etc. Depending on context and campaign, they might be aware of the explicit existence of character level. It is hard to make sense of, e.g., cleric level titles or the 1e rules for druid and monk advancement, unless character level explicitly exists in-world.

In 4E D&D, the matter ends there. The characters are special; the rules that govern their activities explicitly are disassociated from the game world. Characters don't earn XP and gain levels because they adventure; they earn XP because they are the heroes of the story being told and gaining levels advances the story. Experience points are an entirely disassociated mechanic.

In other versions of D&D, where the rules that apply to the PCs also apply to the NPCs, and where the PCs are assumed to be part of the world and not special snowflakes, then there has to be more to the matter.

Here, whether character level is explicit or implicit, characters must be aware that adventuring is a means by which they can advance in character level. Again, the game world does not make sense otherwise. Why would a promising young apprentice seek adventure if staying back in the wizard's tower with his master was a more effective means of increasing his power? On the other hand, XP clearly does not explicitly exist within the world (even if level does), as it is nonsensical to think that somehow bashing a monster would make a thief better at picking locks, or finding a diamond would help a mage learn fireball.

So the question then becomes what is the nature of the relationship between the game mechanic of XP from adventuring, and the in-world result of increasing in power after a series of adventures. I think the answer here is to understand XP as a mechanic which is associated with or reflective of something significant going on in the world, but in a very abstract way - much like hit points, properly understand.

In this interpretation, when a character earns XP, it represents:
- The character gaining in self-confidence from overcoming challenges. ("That which does not kill me, makes me stronger.")
- The character revealing powers or abilities he had always had, but didn't know until revealed ("That which does not kill me, marks me as stronger." - the fittest survive)
- The character gaining in self-insight from his own reactions to stress.
- The character learning skills from using them in stressful or challenging conditions.
- The character gaining knowledge from studying forgotten glyphs, ancient ruins, or magic items; seeing magical beasts; traveling to marvelous locations; etc.
- The character earning the favor of the gods, fate, or destiny. (think of how ancient writers described Alexander the Great as one beloved by the goddess Fortune because of his conquests)

The acquisition of gold or the killing of monsters is simply a mechanical measure, a proxy, used to approximate the above. It's like a tax on gasoline to pay for highway maintenance. Gasoline consumption doesn't *directly* put wear-and-tear on the highways - an electric-hybrid sedan might use less gas than a gas-engine sports car, even though the sedan puts more wear and tear on the road - but it is a good proxy. Likewise, the fact that a thief recovered the 5,000gp Jewel of the Night doesn't necessarily mean he gained self-confidence from successfully picking a lock, or that he learned how better to disarm traps by doing so on the adventure, but over time a thief who recovers a lot of treasure while adventuring probably has used his skills in ways that are beneficial to him. What makes acquiring gold and killing monsters such useful proxies is that they are (a) objective tasks which are (b) easily measurable, and thhat are (c) by-products of mercenary and/or heroic behavior which (d) reflect the "fame and fortune" mentality of real-world heroes and adventurers.

That all said, I think it would be an interesting challenge to create a system that uses class, level, and XP, but allocates XP with a less-abstract system that directly correlates to the game world. 2E D&D made a few steps in this direction (fighters gained extra XP for fighting, wizards for spellcasting, etc.) but it was not fully fleshed out. I could imagine a system where finding magic scrolls, dissecting never-before-seen monsters, and visiting ancient places of power gives XP to arcane casters, while fighters gain XP from killing monsters, and thieves gain XP from successfully using their skills to get treasure.

I dunno, it never really comes up in-game. And it doesn't matter in D&D, it just is what it is.

In a more realistic-themed game it matters, but... most players treat every game like D&D anyway, so they never survive long enough to notice the advancement rules are different. Like this guy I played Recon with who went through 17 characters in one night.

It can make a huge difference what the players care about and notice, and how they play.

I had a player early on who bought a tough lock to practice lockpicking with, which was cool and made sense except the player was also testing to see if he could sit around picking it constantly and gaining experience points which could then increase his strength, dexterity and intelligence (in TFT, where those are the things that measure how capable you are). Clearly you shouldn't be able to become Conan von Merlin by spending a week or even a year picking the same lock. That was just the beginning of interesting attempts to find ways to improve characters that required GM rulings that made sense to avoid having a game world that doesn't make sense.

But many players don't even go there or think about it. Hmm, I need to learn Fireball? I guess I need to loot 573 more gold pieces and then I will be able to. Ok, sure, natch.

And if I read Gronan rightly above, it seems he does take cause & effect into account via GM rulings, but doesn't consider it a problem that there are illogical rules since he just sanity checks and uses GM rulings.

Quote from: Skarg;930217It can make a huge difference what the players care about and notice, and how they play.

I had a player early on who bought a tough lock to practice lockpicking with, which was cool and made sense except the player was also testing to see if he could sit around picking it constantly and gaining experience points which could then increase his strength, dexterity and intelligence (in TFT, where those are the things that measure how capable you are). Clearly you shouldn't be able to become Conan von Merlin by spending a week or even a year picking the same lock. That was just the beginning of interesting attempts to find ways to improve characters that required GM rulings that made sense to avoid having a game world that doesn't make sense.

But many players don't even go there or think about it. Hmm, I need to learn Fireball? I guess I need to loot 573 more gold pieces and then I will be able to. Ok, sure, natch.

And if I read Gronan rightly above, it seems he does take cause & effect into account via GM rulings, but doesn't consider it a problem that there are illogical rules since he just sanity checks and uses GM rulings.

Actually, in 44 years it's never come up.  I've heard players complain about "gold for XP," saying "I'm going to rub gold on myself to learn to fight," but they then usually go on to favor "monster kills for XP" to which my counter is "So you're going to kill orcs until you learn to read?"

Any mechanism is going to be flawed in some way or the other.  Most of us just roll with it.

The only game I've played where the characters were actively aware of their levels/class was in Earthdawn due to the Circle system with adepts and actual in game training time costs for everything from talents to skills to spells to talent knacks to advancing Circles, which required finding a trainer of a higher Circle in your Discipline. Although flavorful it slowed down play quite a bit with whole game sessions of what would be done in-between sessions devoted just to doing things in town such as training.

Savage Worlds and D&D games typically handled it as out of game end of session XP. You just leveled up when you got enough XP or advanced between sessions. Each has some in-game training mechanisms though. Like wizards with scribing scrolls in D&D or in Savage Worlds there is the Day in the Life system by Sean Patrick Fannon which offers in-game options for downtime such as training skills for those who want more in-play options for advancement.

 In D&D, the only way they should be "aware" of levels is if they have a similar in-game reason to Earthdawn. Like they need to seek out a trainer in their class to level up to the next level in their class. This does make play longer but like in Earthdawn this can be used as an adventure hook. Finding the trainer is one, or you find the trainer but they won't train you unless you complete a task for them related to their class rather than take gold for training is another type.