Quote from: Omega;931629Right. Theres going to be a discrepency between an adventurer and a non-adventurer if the non-adventurer has levels or equivalent unless the non-adventurer has been doing the equivalent of adventuring too. Or the system supports non-com EXP.

This is ever the problem you get when you try to rationalize game elements that dont cover everything the same way. Or when someone tried to make a non-in-game element in game. Like levels or EXP.

Its the same as asking "Does my character know what level they are?" or "Does my character know a +3 sword is +3?" or "Does my character know of the to-hit table?" and so on.

Quote from: Whitewings;931991XP is not in character. Advancement is. Unless, of course, you want to go with the idea that people don't actually notice when they get better at things, which is not only not the case in the real world but falls completely apart when applied to casters. "I can cast mightier spells now, and I've figured out how these new spells work," is extremely obvious, to the point that "I'm now a better " is a conclusion one would need to actively work to avoid reaching.

Quite so, Whitewing. A character won't know that a +3 sword is +3, but they will know that it is a magic sword that is better than the +1 magic sword, and is more difficult to make, and worth more gold if sold. As I stated in the original post, this isn't about whether they know about level numbers and experience points - this is about whether they know that advancement is going to happen and what causes it.

One example is - The characters are facing a powerful enemy, who isn't an immediate threat but is an eventual one. Does it make sense for the characters to say to themselves, "We want to stop this - but we're not powerful enough yet. Let's go elsewhere and get more powerful before taking him on."

Is it reasonable for them to expect to go up in power significantly? If so, do they know what they should be doing to become more powerful?

Normally, in the past for D&D, this has been mostly been handled out-of-character. i.e. The players don't pretend to take their character's point of view, and just say to each other "Let's adventure somewhere else until we've gone up a few levels, then come back here to take this on."  It's left unclear or undefined what the characters are thinking. But in my current campaign, I've been sticking more to the in-character point of view, and this is a question that came up.

I am leaning towards something like the Earthdawn approach, which could make XP more like hit points. Characters don't know what hit points are, but they know what causes damage and what the results of damage are.

Quote from: jhkim;932051As I stated in the original post, this isn't about whether they know about level numbers and experience points - this is about whether they know that advancement is going to happen and what causes it.

One example is - The characters are facing a powerful enemy, who isn't an immediate threat but is an eventual one. Does it make sense for the characters to say to themselves, "We want to stop this - but we're not powerful enough yet. Let's go elsewhere and get more powerful before taking him on."

Is it reasonable for them to expect to go up in power significantly? If so, do they know what they should be doing to become more powerful?

Normally, in the past for D&D, this has been mostly been handled out-of-character. i.e. The players don't pretend to take their character's point of view, and just say to each other "Let's adventure somewhere else until we've gone up a few levels, then come back here to take this on."  It's left unclear or undefined what the characters are thinking. But in my current campaign, I've been sticking more to the in-character point of view, and this is a question that came up.

I am leaning towards something like the Earthdawn approach, which could make XP more like hit points. Characters don't know what hit points are, but they know what causes damage and what the results of damage are.

1: You may state this but your examples keep deviating off into odd angles.

2: How do they know the enemy is too strong for them currently? Usually what we've seen is "You spot a man in full plate leading the group. From the quality of his equipment and how he carries himself you can guess that he will be difficult to face with your current party." And then said party has to figure out how to handle it.
Such as risking attacking now.
Or heading back to town and rounding up some NPCs to bolster the fighting force.
Or deciding they need a magic weapon proported to be in some ruins to the north. Acquiring said weapon will inadvertently gain them some EXP in the process. But all the PCs know is that they need that sword.
Or deciding they need to train more before they can take this guy on. And training could mean going out on missions for the teacher and here too gaining some EXP. But all the PCs know is that the teacher is a jerk for sending them off to annoy some ogres.

3: Probably not. They may be aware that they are getting more adept. Or it may just come naturally. All this was ALOT easier pre-3e when the classes were mostly mechanically front-loaded and then didnt gain much new once they were off and running. Or if they did. It was occasionally somewhat in keeping with the theme of class. Like the Monk. 3e and onwards muddies this significantly as now every class gains a new widget every few levels. Some are still more outgrowths of the front-loaded abilities. Others are more esoteric jumps.

4: Why would they even know of EXP past the basic common sense of "You get better at doing stuff by doing stuff."?

I just assume that off-camera, the PCs are engaging in practicing and study; while they're camping out, when they're resting, etc.

Quote from: jhkim;932051A character won't know that a +3 sword is +3, but they will know that it is a magic sword that is better than the +1 magic sword, and is more difficult to make, and worth more gold if sold. As I stated in the original post, this isn't about whether they know about level numbers and experience points - this is about whether they know that advancement is going to happen and what causes it. .

A +3 sword is 15% more likely to hit and does almost twice as much damage on average (7.4 hp vs 4.5 hp). I think a profesional warrior who spends all day training with and using swords is going to figure out pretty quickly how much better this sword is than an ordinary sword. They probably won't think of it as "+3", but they will know it is better by about that much.

I think much the same goes for Experience Levels. It only takes a little experience with combat, or even watching combat, to be able to size up an opponent and know if he is better or lesser than another. Look at boxing. So knowing that someone is high level or low level, certainly. Saying this mage must be only Level 4 because he hasn't cast "Death Finger of Whozit", no.

To size up someone's fighting skill you usually need to see or engage them fighting or signaling the skill first in some fashion, unless somehow you have advance knowledge of them (trained under master swordman whosit  or has a reputation  as a skilled fighter, etc)

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;932879To size up someone's fighting skill you usually need to see or engage them fighting or signaling the skill first in some fashion, unless somehow you have advance knowledge of them (trained under master swordman whosit  or has a reputation  as a skilled fighter, etc)

Not true, you can often size up boxers by seeing them walk to the ring.

Quote from: jhkim;932051... One example is - The characters are facing a powerful enemy, who isn't an immediate threat but is an eventual one. Does it make sense for the characters to say to themselves, "We want to stop this - but we're not powerful enough yet. Let's go elsewhere and get more powerful before taking him on."

Is it reasonable for them to expect to go up in power significantly? If so, do they know what they should be doing to become more powerful?
...

While I like the caution and strategic approach, I immediately think of three things about this that seem off:

1) Expecting an enemy to stay put and not change location and situation for long enough to make a major shift in one's own abilities.

2) Expecting that enemies won't also be likely training and improving and reinforcing while you are "leveling up".

3) Unless the PCs are currently somewhat green or lacking much serious combat experience, I'd expect that the character improvement system may be one of the many that are pretty fast and heavily weighted to in-play experience, and have a very high/stratified range of power levels, if experienced powerful warriors find they are outmatched, but can go off to get some more experience and in a relatively short time come back and be more powerful and expect to defeat such people based on skill improvements. Seems like in a more realistic world, the experienced powerful warriors would tend to have many years of experience, be relatively on par with each other, and not be experiencing major shifts in ability via experience, unless comparing people who don't really do much serious fighting with those who go fight in serious battles.

Quote from: jhkim;932051Does it make sense for the characters to say to themselves, "We want to stop this - but we're not powerful enough yet. Let's go elsewhere and get more powerful before taking him on."

Of course it does. The difference is, you actually play out the training montage.

Quote from: AsenRG;932881Not true, you can often size up boxers by seeing them walk to the ring.

Please explain?

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;932919Please explain?

What is there to explain? When you see two kick-boxers that take a walk from the changing rooms to the ring, you can often tell which one is going to win.
So no, you don't need to see them fighting.

Before we get mired into a completely off-topic Real World Martial Arts discussion, lets look at a good on-topic answer...

Quote from: Black Vulmea;932901Of course it does. The difference is, you actually play out the training montage.

Real world people do this all the time.  You play in the minors before you go to The Show.  You take key jobs to fill in your resume for the Dream Job.  You go through training for the Heist/Big Fight/Assault and yeah, like BV says, actually play through the montage of weeks or months.

It's not so much a case of "Is XP IC?" as much as "Is the whole Class/Level/HP structure IC?"  It's an abstract framework, a shorthand for expressing the capabilities of the character.  So, yes, it can be kind of difficult to relate to IC simply due to the level of abstraction.  The only difference between a PC and a person though, is that a person usually under- or over-estimates their ability relative to a situation where some player who has memorized all the rules and runs all the math, aka a Denner, can come up with more concrete odds.  Of course they can still be wrong.

The main point is, PCs generally will have an idea of their capabilities relative to a goblin, a hobgoblin, a bugbear, an ogre, or Sauron and can calculate basic strength and odds just like anyone can.  Granted some better than others.

It's hard to keep it really IC though when we're talking about holding off on the ogre cave until the Fighters get their last 750xp so they rise to the level where their attacks move from 1/1 to 3/2.

At some point you just have to accept the abstraction and assume that the characters know about those things in their own terms.  Or go to something like a d100 system and just rank people according to percentage, so someone who is a known Master at something is 90% etc.

Quote from: CRKrueger;932928Before we get mired into a completely off-topic Real World Martial Arts discussion, lets look at a good on-topic answer...

Not by me, I just shared experience from watching live boxing matches:).

QuoteThe only difference between a PC and a person though, is that a person usually under- or over-estimates their ability relative to a situation where some player who has memorized all the rules and runs all the math, aka a Denner, can come up with more concrete odds.  Of course they can still be wrong.

So, the difference is that PCs are more self-aware, except when they aren't:D?

QuoteAt some point you just have to accept the abstraction and assume that the characters know about those things in their own terms.  Or go to something like a d100 system and just rank people according to percentage, so someone who is a known Master at something is 90% etc.

Personally, I find that to be the most acceptable solution;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;932928... It's not so much a case of "Is XP IC?" as much as "Is the whole Class/Level/HP structure IC?" ...

Unless like me you play games that don't have classes, levels, nor D&D-style hitpoints. Though there are still issues with do you know your attribute and skill levels, and how accurately? Sometimes we've played where players don't know accurately what their stats are (even though those stats do fairly closely map to things a PC would think about IC, even if they don't know it in terms of game numbers), but many players tend to prefer to know their PC's actual game stats, even if that means a level of play is distinctly OOC.

And yet, my friends and I have talked about how the OOC use of stats and hexes and so on, while gamey, may be an apt metaphor for the PCs' understanding of their own competence and other details of their experience that we can't have as players since we're not them and we aren't in the situation. So the knowledge of the game stats and situation corresponds (sort of) to the PCs' relationships to actually handing the situation. e.g. As AsenRG says, people do have senses of who's better than whom or whatever - it's just encoded into game stats for the players. Depending on how that's done and what sort of information the GM gives to the players, this might be practically similar to the PCs' situation, or not.