This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?  (Read 7322 times)

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14805
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2021, 08:25:20 PM »
Traveller PCs very rarely change mechanically. You may gain more money which may allow you to buy bigger and better toys, but your stats and skills usually stay the same for most PCs.

hedgehobbit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2021, 10:07:07 PM »
I am not  fan of 'levels" in rpgs, especially when it means a 5th level character can survive damage that would kill one or more 1st level characters.

For me it depends on the genre. Some types of games absolutely require high level characters to absorb damage that would kill normal men.

However, I can see a game with a curve that's that is flatter than regular D&D. I'm not a fan of something like E6 which has one set of rules for early game and another, different, set of advancement rules after a certain point. You could just as easily adjust the leveling charts to account for limited hit point growth, for example, without actually stopping level advancement.

Or use a system, such as the old Bushido, where hit point growth was independent of skill values. So a first level character could have a max skill while a high level character could only have basic training.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 10:10:12 PM by hedgehobbit »

Jam The MF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2021, 03:35:10 AM »
I just finished creating a 1st level 4 member adventuring party for D&D 3.0

That took me a long time.  The characters have lots and lots of bonuses, adjustments, and skills.  Enough magic spells per day to completely overshadow any 1st level OSR casters.  Low HP is their only real weakness.

I could see the party being able to accomplish a lot; even if I only gave them extra hp at every level, and an ability score increase every 2 or 3 levels.
Let the Dice, Decide the Outcome.  Accept the Results.

Sable Wyvern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 358
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2021, 03:48:29 AM »
There were some groans from at least one player when I advised them I would be using a very slow progression in Traveller, and they shouldn't expect to see any kind of significant skill advancement over the course of the campaign. (You get one XP for every six months in game time. 1XP is enough to get you a chance of learning a new skill or increasing a low one. Increasing a skill already at 2 would take about two years of XP saving in-game to get your first chance.)

Seven sessions in, and I haven't heard mention of it. Of course, it helps that the characters start competent. They don't actually need to advance their skills to do cool shit. Stealing a ship, achieving an objective, making allies, generating a reputation, upgrading gear and advancing towards their goals are providing a more-than-sufficient sense of progress and advancement.

When I was running d20 Conan, and wanted slow progression, I broke down all class features (BAB, defence, HD, special abilities) etc ... into discrete items bought with XP. You could still only buy the things available at your next level, but while it took while to gain a full level, the characters were constantly gaining at least small improvements, and enjoyed the sense of constantly advancing.

On the other end of the scale, when running Lone Wolf d20, I was giving out a level per book. Several players actually felt that was too fast.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 03:54:49 AM by Sable Wyvern »

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2021, 05:27:23 AM »
Of course, it helps that the characters start competent. They don't actually need to advance their skills to do cool shit.
This is key in a game with no/minimal advancement. In Star Trek Adventures (Modiphius 2d20), mechanical character growth is minimal, with your character more likely to shift a few points or traits around rather than pick up a net gain in total power. However, as they start as well-rounded, hyper-competent Starfleet Officers, this isn't really a problem. If it is, there are some alternate rules in (IIRC) the Klingon book that can change this up some.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2021, 06:47:05 AM »
However, I can see a game with a curve that's that is flatter than regular D&D. I'm not a fan of something like E6 which has one set of rules for early game and another, different, set of advancement rules after a certain point. You could just as easily adjust the leveling charts to account for limited hit point growth, for example, without actually stopping level advancement.
Old school D&D already has something similar to E6. Hit point progression doesn't stop at name level, but it does flatten out. A Basic fighter, for instance, gets 1d8+Con bonus/level up to 9th level, then +2 hp/level after. XP requirements to gain a new level also shift from exponential (x2/level) to linear (+X per level). The main difference is a Basic fighter continues to advance in to hit rolls and saves, and if used, skills and weapon mastery. And spellcasters still gain new spell levels (up to 16th to 21st level) and spells.

In contrast, E6 characters stop gaining hp, BAB, base save bonuses, and just gain new feats (which can be used to gain new skill levels and spells, but not to exceed the spell or skill level caps). XP requirements also shift from triangular to linear (+X/3 per new feat).

So E6 shifts to a kind of lateral progression at 6th level, where improvements in the primary game-stats are capped (with some minor exceptions), and characters are restricted to adding new abilities rather than improving existing ones. In contrast, the old school version only really caps hit points. Which is odd, because things like fireball damage still increase, which ends up hurting warriors and helping spellcasters (who really don't need it, at that point). Both BECMI and AD&D2e tried to deal with this by adding damage caps to at least some spells (20d in BECMI, variable but often 10d in 2e).

I find E6 to be more coherent. It really is a cap, while the name level cap in old school D&D is mostly about XP and hit points. Extending the concept, an E9 version of Basic D&D would cap saves, the to hit tables, spell levels (5th), and probably cap the maximum level of weapon mastery (Expert? Grand Master?), but allow new weapon mastery, skill, and spell slots. Have to play with the XP costs in BECMI E9, but each new feat after 6th level in E6 costs 1/3rd the number of XP required to reach 6th level. Charging say 60K for new skill slots, 60K for a new weapon mastery slot for fighters and 120K for everyone else, and 50/75/100K for new spell slots for clerics/magic-users/elves might be reasonable.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 07:03:49 AM by Pat »

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2021, 07:53:13 AM »
I am not  fan of 'levels" in rpgs, especially when it means a 5th level character can survive damage that would kill one or more 1st level characters.

That mostly happens in D&D or games derived directly from it. In most other games I've seen with level-based progression (like Palladium system) characters start out with a decent amount of HP, then only get a minimal amount of HP per level.

Another problem with D&D is that 1st level characters can be killed by things most normal couch potatoes in real life would survive, even if seriously injured. I mean seriously, a RAT can kill a 0-level commoner in D&D with little effort. D&D doesn't handle survivability well.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2021, 08:33:15 AM »
Another problem with D&D is that 1st level characters can be killed by things most normal couch potatoes in real life would survive, even if seriously injured. I mean seriously, a RAT can kill a 0-level commoner in D&D with little effort. D&D doesn't handle survivability well.
It's fine for creatures that are roughly human-size or larger. But yes, for smaller critters, old school D&D has some issues. The basic problem is about 1 in 3 or 4 NPCs has 1 hp. An attack that does even 1 point of damage is a potentially fatal wound, for at least 25% of the population.

Is there a reasonable chance an animal can kill a healthy human being who is actively defending themselves? If the answer is no, the animal should do 0 damage. This applies to small dogs, squirrels, hawks, eagles, and even the fabled domestic cat. If they have attacks, it should be of the nuisance variety, not the damage variety (ordinary bats in B/X are a good example).

Jam The MF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2021, 01:09:09 PM »
Critical Hit Damage can also be a misnomer.

A non-critical hit from a short sword can potentially be 6HP.

A x2 Critical hit from a short sword can potentially be 2HP.

What then, is Critical about the hit?

How about Critical Hits always do maximum damage, without requiring a damage die roll?

That makes more sense.  It's consistent.
Let the Dice, Decide the Outcome.  Accept the Results.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2021, 01:25:24 PM »
Critical Hit Damage can also be a misnomer.

A non-critical hit from a short sword can potentially be 6HP.

A x2 Critical hit from a short sword can potentially be 2HP.

What then, is Critical about the hit?

How about Critical Hits always do maximum damage, without requiring a damage die roll?

That makes more sense.  It's consistent.

This is off-topic, but alternately, to keep variability, you can have critical damage be maximum + regular roll. That's what Call of Cthulhu / BRP has for impale results.

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2021, 01:28:21 PM »
Another problem with D&D is that 1st level characters can be killed by things most normal couch potatoes in real life would survive, even if seriously injured. I mean seriously, a RAT can kill a 0-level commoner in D&D with little effort. D&D doesn't handle survivability well.
It's fine for creatures that are roughly human-size or larger. But yes, for smaller critters, old school D&D has some issues. The basic problem is about 1 in 3 or 4 NPCs has 1 hp. An attack that does even 1 point of damage is a potentially fatal wound, for at least 25% of the population.

Is there a reasonable chance an animal can kill a healthy human being who is actively defending themselves? If the answer is no, the animal should do 0 damage. This applies to small dogs, squirrels, hawks, eagles, and even the fabled domestic cat. If they have attacks, it should be of the nuisance variety, not the damage variety (ordinary bats in B/X are a good example).

The problem with that approach is that it doesn't emulate damage very well because a rat could still potentially kill a healthy human being. Eventually. Specially if it's a bunch of rats gnawing at the bits or the human keels over and can't get up (or is bound). So a rat bite should do some damage (not to mention risk of disease or infection). But when the system starts out with the assumption that an average healthy human who isn't an experienced adventurer only has a single hit dice and they need to hit points, you don't have a lot of room to work with, even if you lower a tiny creature's bite to just 1hp per hit.

Even when dealing with medium or larger creature attacks it still remains an issue, because a person who rolled one single HP on their HD would still be instant-killed if they get hit with a stick. Once! With ANY hit no matter how low as long as it inflicts damage. And that's freaking absurd.

A 1hp commoner could die from a hard bitch slap from a high Strength fighter.

Mishihari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 990
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2021, 01:34:30 PM »
As others have mentioned, many game systems lack incremental progress.

RuneQuest had percentile skills, each time you used one you gave it a tick, and after the adventure you had to roll above your current skill level to be able to add a few points to it - and those points were random. Thus, progress from 20% to 30% tended to be rapid, and progress from 80% to 90% much slower. This well-reflects the real world diminishing returns of efforts in any skill area - your first 100 hours learning a language or driving teach you a lot more than does your 10th 100 hours.

Classic Traveller has as a default no skill advancement at all. However, you can choose to try to improve something. Once you start lessons you get a temporary boost, then after some years you make a dedication throw (8+ on 2d6, ie 15/36 or 42% chance of success) to see if it sticks. That's like the people who come to my gym for a while and then leave - after 3-6 months they know what to do, but do they actually do it on their own?

In reality, there are only four meaningful skill levels: shit, suck, good, great. To be not shit doesn't take much time or effort. Being good takes a lot of time and effort, and great takes dedicating your life to that thing. People do have natural talent levels, but rarer than talent is people willing to make the effort to be something other than just not shit. Most people are shit at almost everything, and not shit - suck - at a few things. Most people aren't good at anything, let alone great.

That's reality. Whether you care about reality in a game with orcs and elves and fireballs and wands of resurrection or warp drives and phasers and unobtanium is another matter.

I partially agree with this, but only for unopposed checks and systems where modifiers are rare.

If two swordsman are in a duel and both are "good" but one is significantly better than the other, then that difference will be very important to the outcome of the duel.

And if a climber is "good" but there are modifiers apply to the current climb because the surface is wet (or whatever) but not to the extent that he should be treated as "suck," then small differences in skill level will be important too,

Jam The MF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2021, 03:52:42 PM »
Critical Hit Damage can also be a misnomer.

A non-critical hit from a short sword can potentially be 6HP.

A x2 Critical hit from a short sword can potentially be 2HP.

What then, is Critical about the hit?

How about Critical Hits always do maximum damage, without requiring a damage die roll?

That makes more sense.  It's consistent.

This is off-topic, but alternately, to keep variability, you can have critical damage be maximum + regular roll. That's what Call of Cthulhu / BRP has for impale results.


I'd say it's related to success improvement; since part of the character's advancement, usually involves them acquiring more powerful weapons and magic items.
Let the Dice, Decide the Outcome.  Accept the Results.

Zelen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 861
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2021, 06:56:49 PM »
The level treadmill and its lack of connection to fiction is one of my bigger gripes when it comes to D&D. I understand why developers/publishers want to provide this content, but at my actual gaming table there's no reason it has to be this way.

In future campaigns I run I might try to tie character progression to more meaningful story beats. If the player characters defeat a goblin tribe, slay a dragon, or banish a demon-prince, then based on what they actually accomplished give them some benefits. Of course negotiating with players on what they want and how to handle it is a lot more work, but personalizing the game is pretty much the point of running TTRPGs.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2021, 07:22:51 PM »
The level treadmill and its lack of connection to fiction is one of my bigger gripes when it comes to D&D. I understand why developers/publishers want to provide this content, but at my actual gaming table there's no reason it has to be this way.

In future campaigns I run I might try to tie character progression to more meaningful story beats. If the player characters defeat a goblin tribe, slay a dragon, or banish a demon-prince, then based on what they actually accomplished give them some benefits. Of course negotiating with players on what they want and how to handle it is a lot more work, but personalizing the game is pretty much the point of running TTRPGs.

Personally, I hate these kinds of milestone xp systems. I like xp and levels and I like the system to have some granularity so the GM can modulate the xp awards.

The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung