Every class usually gets better every level because they get more Hit Points, even after capping out Hit Dice.  Casters usually get increases to spells per day nearly every level if not every level.
In 1e, Fighters got +2 better To Hit every 2 levels, the other classes were more chunky and sometimes got several numbers jump better after several levels.

Dragon 80 had an article by Lakofka who suggested blowing up the multi-point jumps every few levels and having advancement be 5% at a time and more often.  Same progression, but smoother.

Quote from: Omega;930878Only in 3 and 4e I believe? All other editions far as I know Fighters progressed every 3 or so levels. Magic Users every five. The other classes somewhere in between.

Fighters get a +1 to THAC0 every level in 2nd Edition D&D as well;).

Quote from: Omega;930878Only in 3 and 4e I believe? All other editions far as I know Fighters progressed every 3 or so levels. Magic Users every five. The other classes somewhere in between.

As I recall, in AD&D 1e fighters progressed by +2 every other level and the book said you could just make that +1 per level if you chose to.

Quote from: AsenRG;930871Undisputably.
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:).

I should have said disputing instead of describing.  But if I remember right Gygax spends a column or two of small type discussing what hit points represent in the DMG.

Also, fighters get +1 to hit per level in Castles and Crusades and third edition D&D.  It's too much as 4e and 5e recognize.  Really I think the proficiency bonus advancement in 5e is too slow and there are too many special case rules.  I mean, 5e is the only edition of D&D that I've liked since first, but it's still way too fiddly.

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.

Obviously, 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?

If 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?"

In most implementations I've seen, it's an abstraction that's out of character at least in a partial way, just like  hit points (as you said). The characters, in my games at least, don't think of their experience as points and levels. The reason it's not intrusive, though, is that a lot of that XP awarding and tracking happens in between sessions, where I'm not in-character anyway.

It's interesting...I never thought of combat as an out of character game, but it sort of is. I wouldn't call the combat portions of sessions I've had 'roleplay', in this light.

Quote from: rawma;930910As I recall, in AD&D 1e fighters progressed by +2 every other level and the book said you could just make that +1 per level if you chose to.

Dont have the books handy. I know wizards advanced 1 every three. So probably right there.

Quote from: David Johansen;930928I should have said disputing instead of describing.  But if I remember right Gygax spends a column or two of small type discussing what hit points represent in the DMG.

Well, the question is, do we include the bleeding rules and hit locations the GURPS damage system, or not:D?

QuoteAlso, fighters get +1 to hit per level in Castles and Crusades and third edition D&D.  It's too much as 4e and 5e recognize.  Really I think the proficiency bonus advancement in 5e is too slow and there are too many special case rules.  I mean, 5e is the only edition of D&D that I've liked since first, but it's still way too fiddly.

I don't think it's too much, personally, but it's too much if the game is meant to last for 20 levels:).

Quote from: Omega;930983Dont have the books handy. I know wizards advanced 1 every three. So probably right there.

You can add +1 per level in 2e and 3e;).

Thanks for the discussion. I think a lot of this is missing a basic point, though, at least for D&D.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;930971In most implementations I've seen, it's an abstraction that's out of character at least in a partial way, just like  hit points (as you said). The characters, in my games at least, don't think of their experience as points and levels. The reason it's not intrusive, though, is that a lot of that XP awarding and tracking happens in between sessions, where I'm not in-character anyway.

Well, for my case, it was relevant in-character when the PCs started having an in-character discussion about what they would do in the future. Do the characters understand that they'll eventually become huge powerhouses if they keep adventuring and survive? How they picture their future is pretty important for a lot of decisions that the characters make.

With hit points, characters don't understand the details - but they understand the basic causes and effects. Getting hit causes damage, and as you take more damage, you'll fall unconscious and/or die.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;930971It's interesting...I never thought of combat as an out of character game, but it sort of is. I wouldn't call the combat portions of sessions I've had 'roleplay', in this light.

Yeah, there's something of a division in most games. In my current campaign, I've been trying to emphasize more in-character stuff during combat, so they can make decisions based on their character, but a lot of the time it becomes a purely out-of-character exercise.

QuoteWell, for my case, it was relevant in-character when the PCs started having an in-character discussion about what they would do in the future.

Do the characters understand that they'll eventually become huge powerhouses if they keep adventuring and survive?

How they picture their future is pretty important for a lot of decisions that the characters make.

1: er... and? What is the PC discussing?

2: No? Why would they other than the basic knowledge that it takes effort to advance in anything? But probably no one ever correlates "going on advantures = advancing career" They go out seeking power, fame or fortune and in the process get better at it without possibly ever realizing it. Along the way they picked up a few tricks. Depending on the edition of D&D they might or might not have to spend some time and money at some sort of guild or equivalent to actually advance and learn. And again. Thats up to you and/or the campaigns treatment to sort out.

3: Unless its 3 or 4e theres not alot of "planning the future" though? In 5e you choose which class path to take. But thats not much different from planning your job career as it were. Might help to clarify what you are having the PC planning in game?

I think if XP were seriously meant to simulate anything and have an in character meeting in a "if a practice X I get better over time" you would naturally also need the reverse logic "if I don't practice Y eventually I get rusty".

Sometimes a game mechanic is just a game mechanic. People seem to like character's progression, it's featured that has been widely copied in countless games.

Quote from: Soylent Green;931553I think if XP were seriously meant to simulate anything and have an in character meeting in a "if a practice X I get better over time" you would naturally also need the reverse logic "if I don't practice Y eventually I get rusty".

A notion that has been talked about including in RPGs many times. IIR, it's even been done, though rarely.

Generally the consensus seems to be that while something like that does replicate reality it's a lot of extra book keeping to get an effect that the majority of players would dislike in a game, and that the majority of real people dislike in reality.

Quote from: Bren;931585A notion that has been talked about including in RPGs many times. IIR, it's even been done, though rarely.

Generally the consensus seems to be that while something like that does replicate reality it's a lot of extra book keeping to get an effect that the majority of players would dislike in a game, and that the majority of real people dislike in reality.

IIRC, there is a discussion of skill rustiness in the character development section of the GURPS Basic Set 4e, with guidelines for suggested effects, as well as mention that some players may not want to have this be a thing.

I think it can be too fiddly but can also be interesting. I prefer a mechanic about attention/practice to ones about hard limits on what people can learn. For example, in TFT there is a hard limit on the number of Talents & spells & languages a character can have based on their IQ stat (which can be raised by experience, but not by huge amounts). This led to characters having no free slots to be able to add new talents, and the mechanic for forgetting a talent either took a huge amount of game time (during which you had to avoid using the talent) or you could pay a wizard with telepathy to erase the talent from your mind (but they could also read your mind/memories while they were there). Which was pretty comical. But it seems to me that a system where what skills are sharp is governed by where you're putting your attention can make some sense and seem appropriate.

Quote from: Omega;931548

QuoteDo the characters understand that they'll eventually become huge powerhouses if they keep adventuring and survive?

No? Why would they other than the basic knowledge that it takes effort to advance in anything? But probably no one ever correlates "going on advantures = advancing career" They go out seeking power, fame or fortune and in the process get better at it without possibly ever realizing it. Along the way they picked up a few tricks. Depending on the edition of D&D they might or might not have to spend some time and money at some sort of guild or equivalent to actually advance and learn. And again. Thats up to you and/or the campaigns treatment to sort out.

Seems to me it depends on the advancement system and how big an effect it has on the PC and NPC power levels. In some games it's not very pronounced. But in many games PCs start out as fairly capable but as they gain experience they start becoming extremely much more powerful, and able to overpower easily foes that at first were challenging, able to take on local police or military, etc., mainly as a result of experience. Similarly, the power levels of many/all NPCs in some games may be mainly thought to be determined by their Level as gained in theory through experience, and that may be the main determinant of whether someone is massively more powerful that another. So in such games it's one of, or even the main source of personal power and ability. To use an extreme slightly off-topic example, the bikini elf wizard on all the covers of Everquest boxes if she were a real high-level character who'd been played all this time and even able to participate in the high-level world areas, would have to have tons of experience which means she no doubt is a mass-murderer of the game's infinitely-regenerating NPC victims, having first massacred 1000+ small animals, proceeding to goblins and then orcs and then trolls and then whatever else the progression of things to kill actually is. That's the way the world works. For a more-on-topic example, even in ACKS where there is some focus on non-personal power, the kings and guild leaders are assumed to be at certain experience levels in order to have their power level, which also comes with the ability to wipe the floor with a lower-level character of the same type if single combat happened, etc. Which is a long way of elaborating that the major source of huge personal power and ability in many games is from experience, which very much effects the reality of play or who's in what position of authority and what decisions will get you killed or not. It's just blatantly true that if you go where the big monsters are you'll be in huge danger, unless you go fight a bunch of lesser threats first. So that kind of needs to be understood in-character, or if it isn't, it's a surreal conceit (not that there aren't plenty of those, and that many players still don't notice or mind such things).

Right. 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.

XP 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.