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.

Dying Earth hints at some spells being more difficult than others.

There.  Character advancement in character.  The whole XP/level system is game mechanic addressed to the idea of "How did Conan become Conan?"

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;929892Well, I personally look at XP and levels not as "getting this many XP causes you to magically fight better," but rather "having this many XP is a way of representing how much better you have learned to fight."

Although I also personally chuck this into the bin labeled "shit I don't worry about much."  When monsters can see in the dark until such time as they are hired by players at which point they lose the ability, XP is small beer.

I'm with Gronan on that account. Adventuring XP are learning by practice. XP per session or per achievements are learning by intuitive leaps or by training that was skipped, itself..

Quote from: CRKrueger;929883Of course levels mean better, that doesn't speak to John's point though.  If you have some form of level-based system and you have to train in order to level up then you have the case where the Player knows the Character just went DING! but does the character have any idea?  How do you decide if the next time you go back into town is going to be a "restock and resupply" or a "training" visit?

I'd assume every time is a training visit. Some training just leads to something "clicking".
Same as when you finally end that last point to represent getting better at Fencing, when you play GURPS.

Quote from: DavetheLost;929891Real world example: Martial arts "belt" system. Think of going up in rank as "leveling up". That is probably how the characters view it. You trained and practiced and got better at what you do.

It...often doesn't work like that, I'd say:p. But that's besides the scope of this thread.

Quote from: Omega;929902My brother and some other martial artists though have commented that there was a sort of stepping to learning. Theyd be going along and I quote here. "Then all of a sudden it clicked." So at least for some there is some sort of "level up" where all of a sudden what you've been learning and practicing now makes sense or becomes natural. Which makes me wonder if there are similar stepping moments in fencing or kendo for example.

There are such moments, IME.
Then there are also the moments when you notice that multiple repetitions have lead to smooth improvement you haven't really noticed until now.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930058Only if the referee is too stupid to shit unassisted.

The rules can't fix stupid.

Out of curiosity, how would you rule on that?
The Magic User does nothing but throw knives and run a whole level, and then gets 2500 XP by the "chump change" of combat XP and possibly XP for a quest.
The Magic User does nothing but throw knives and run a whole level, and then finds gets a gem worth 2500 XP.
Because most D&D Referees I know would just tell him he's 2nd level MU now;).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;930152I 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.

Now that is a story I want to hear:D!
(And such players would have no more luck on my table even when I'm running something D&D-related, I suspect).

"Congratulations, you're now a second level fighter.  Time to sell your spellbooks and buy some armor."

However, it's never happened in 44 years, I'm not going to start sweating about it now.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930522"Congratulations, you're now a second level fighter.  Time to sell your spellbooks and buy some armor."

I wish more Referees were like that:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;930534I wish more Referees were like that:D!

Are we back in "too stupid to shit unassisted" territory?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930540Are we back in "too stupid to shit unassisted" territory?

If you define it as "assuming the rules of the game you're running are clearer and more comprehensive than they were meant to be", maybe.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930227Actually, 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.

This was so good I just read it to my wife, who is one of my players.

Quote from: Omega;929902My brother and some other martial artists though have commented that there was a sort of stepping to learning. Theyd be going along and I quote here. "Then all of a sudden it clicked." So at least for some there is some sort of "level up" where all of a sudden what you've been learning and practicing now makes sense or becomes natural. Which makes me wonder if there are similar stepping moments in fencing or kendo for example.

This happens a lot in Aikido. If you take Aikido and the main instructions are not "relax" and "work with the energy" you may not be learning Aikido.

We do the same thing over and over, and keep doing it wrong, until suddenly you figure out the correct energy to put into a move and it suddenly, almost without trying or effort, it works.

Aikido done well, doesn't feel like the nage (person doing the technique) actually did anything.

Quote from: AsenRG;930512Out of curiosity, how would you rule on that?
The Magic User does nothing but throw knives and run a whole level, and then gets 2500 XP by the "chump change" of combat XP and possibly XP for a quest.
The Magic User does nothing but throw knives and run a whole level, and then finds gets a gem worth 2500 XP.
Because most D&D Referees I know would just tell him he's 2nd level MU now;).

Personally as a DM and a player... The Magic-User hit level 2 and maybee got a little better at throwing daggers. They also finished tinkering a new spell and can now add it to their spellbook. Same as a fighter swinging a sword. Eventually they get better at that. Its baked right into the system.

Now if the MU has also been practicing picking locks and sneaking and decides. "Screw learning! I'll just steal my way to success!" Then they just dual-classed to Thief and proceed from there.

Quote from: jhkim;929864So, in the D&D campaign I've been running, I've been pondering what exactly the *characters* think about advancement.  i.e. Would the characters say things to each other like "We'll come back here after I advance and get a Passwall spell." ? Mostly, my players talk about it out of character - but sometimes there are questions like what the characters long-term plans are. It seems nebulous in my games.

"If I study, perhaps I can learn something that could help us, brave companions!"

Quote from: jhkim;929864Obviously, it is out of character to talk about experience points or hit points - but characters might have the expectation that they will get linearly better as they adventure more, or even specifically that they will get higher levels spell, more able to take damage, and so forth. Especially, if XP result from getting gold and/or defeating challenges, do the characters know that?

Well, assuming that people like an adventuring party would know that 'the best way to learn to fight, is to get into a fight'- I'm sure they'd know, in the manner of the old cliche' kung-fu stories where the dude tests his skills against various opponents and improving with each victory.

Quote from: jhkim;929864If they *don't* understand in-character about advancement, then are the characters surprised by how much they're advancing? i.e. Do the characters think "Huh?! It's weird how we're getting more and more powerful. What's up with that?"

I'm -not- a good GM/DM.  But what I would recommend is perhaps narrating it out, maybe? "You strike down the [foe].  As you see him crumple at your feet/in the distance, you can't help but have a moment where you remember where you started, clubbing rats for a fistfull of coppers."

Quote from: Omega;930594Personally as a DM and a player... The Magic-User hit level 2 and maybee got a little better at throwing daggers.

How? No version of D&D that I know of gives the MU an increase in to-hit chances with daggers at 2nd level. Do you make them dual-class to Fighter, even if they haven't got 16 Strength:)?

QuoteNow if the MU has also been practicing picking locks and sneaking and decides. "Screw learning! I'll just steal my way to success!" Then they just dual-classed to Thief and proceed from there.

Again, makes more sense to me, just as Gronan's example. Though in his example, I'm not sure why he'd forget his spells.

And again, what do you do if he hasn't got 16 Dexterity, which was a requirement for dual-classing last I checked;)?

Personally though, it's a bit like hit points.  If you have to spend more text describing what the abstraction means than the entire damage system in GURPS, your abstraction is probably a little too far out there.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930227Actually, 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.

Gronan - first you say it's never come up, but then you quote conversations about it - so clearly in 44 years is has come up.

I agree that any mechanism is going to have flaws (and different things may be considered flaws depending on the group and their current preferences). That there are flaws means that it's worth discussing and comparing flaws.

Quote from: jhkim;930719Gronan - first you say it's never come up, but then you quote conversations about it - so clearly in 44 years is has come up.

I agree that any mechanism is going to have flaws (and different things may be considered flaws depending on the group and their current preferences). That there are flaws means that it's worth discussing and comparing flaws.

To clarify, the conversations haven't been about "is XP in character or not," but rather the much more usual and banal "My game's XP system is better than your game's XP system," which isn't even all that interesting the first time around, never mind subsequently.

The "in character" references were attempts to show how different game systems' XP systems are wrong because you can make them sound silly.

Quote from: AsenRG;930645How? No version of D&D that I know of gives the MU an increase in to-hit chances with daggers at 2nd level. Do you make them dual-class to Fighter, even if they haven't got 16 Strength:)?

Um.. We arent talking about instant gratification here. The fighter doesnt instantly get better either. All the classes advance in their to hit every few lavels. Not every level.

Quote from: David Johansen;930657Personally though, it's a bit like hit points.  If you have to spend more text describing what the abstraction means than the entire damage system in GURPS, your abstraction is probably a little too far out there.

Undisputably.
But, to be fair, I don't know a single edition who spent more text on describing HP than the GURPS damage system. Of course, that might be just me, or it might be that they haven't spent enough text and you believe they should have spent more:).

Quote from: Omega;930819Um.. We arent talking about instant gratification here. The fighter doesnt instantly get better either. All the classes advance in their to hit every few lavels. Not every level.

It wasn't me who mentioned "he gets better in hitting with thrown daggers". I translate that as "got a better to-hit".

Also, Fighters in some editions at least do get better every level, just like wizards get more spells;).