It occured to me whilst reading some threads that a lot of people put great stock in the idea you start low and get tougher as you gain experience. To be this has never been that important to be honest and elements of it like HP increases in D&D really annoy me more than anything else. I guess its levels I rail at rather than improvement through experience per se.
But this got me thinking that aside from some d20 games that sneaked through fantasy games seem to be the ones where you start weak and get tougher, espeically with levelling. In most modern and scifi games you have some sort of backstory/life path chargen. The characters tend to start tough. A Classic traveller character would be 38-44 years old have a dozen skills (using books 4 - 6 not just the basic). Throughout gameplay they wouldn't improve all that much but it didn't matter.
Or take the ADRPG. I always start my players at about 200 points rather than the suggested 100 points. Part of this is because I don't want the elders in the game as I don't like running 20 uber powerful NPCs but the other part is that I want my Amber to feel like the novels and the novels are all about characters with 200 or so points (moreorless). Now Amber if a relative game cos its about ranks so 100 points in 200 point game is really the same as 50 in a 100 piointer but the powers aren't relative.

Especially interesting here is hit points. Even those 'modern' games where there is improvement its very uncommon for your hit points to ever change.

So with that in mind.
i) Why do fantasy games adopt a level model? Is it just D&D heritage?
ii) Why do people have a go at 4e for starting characters tough (whilst longing for the halcyon days when they could die from tripping up and often lost 2 or 3 characters a week) when they are happy to play a harden ex-merc in a cyberpunk game or a superhero that can fly and spurt flame from their fingertips? Aren't we looking to play in games where our PCs can do the same stuff as characters we see in movies or read about it books? Is it all Frodo's fault?
iii) How does D&D get away with hitpoints because its sword and arrows even though the same players woudl balk at it if it was bombs and bullets?

Quote from: jibbajibba;365323It occured to me whilst reading some threads that a lot of people put great stock in the idea you start low and get tougher as you gain experience. To be this has never been that important to be honest and elements of it like HP increases in D&D really annoy me more than anything else. I guess its levels I rail at rather than improvement through experience per se.
But this got me thinking that aside from some d20 games that sneaked through fantasy games seem to be the ones where you start weak and get tougher, espeically with levelling. In most modern and scifi games you have some sort of backstory/life path chargen. The characters tend to start tough. A Classic traveller character woudl be 38-44 years old have a dozen skills. Throughout gameplay they wouldn't improve all that much but it didn't matter.
Or take the ADRPG. I always start my players at about 200 points rather than the suggested 100 points. Part of this is because I don't want the elders in the game as I don't like running 20 uber powerful NPCs but the other part is that I play Amber to emulate the novels and the novels are all about characters with 200 or so points (moreorless). Now Amber if a relative game cos its about ranks so 100 points in 200 point game is really the same as 50 in a 100 piointer but the powers aren't relative.

Especially interesting here is hit points. Even those 'modern' games where there is improvement its very uncommon for your hit points to ever change.

So with that in mind.
i) Why do fantasy games adopt a level model? Is it just D&D heritage?
ii) Why do people have a go at 4e for starting characters tough (whilst longing for the halcyon days when they could die from tripping up and often lost 2 or 3 characters a week) when they are happy to play a harden ex-merc in a cyberpunk game or a superhero that can fly and spurt flame from their fingertips? Aren't we looking to play in games where our PCs can do the same stuff as characters we see in movies or read about it books? Is it all Frodo's fault?
iii) How does D&D get away with hitpoints because its sword and arrows even though the same players woudl balk at it if it was bombs and bullets?

I have no clue. I don't understand fantasy at all.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;365324I have no clue. I don't understand fantasy at all.

-clash

Maybe read my game when its done..

Levels are easier to track mathematically for things like better AC, to-hit attacks rolls, etc ... in D&D.

In practice, the to-hit number of a target roughly scales as:

d20 roll vs.

11 + AC_intrinsic + (level_target - level_attacker).

AC_intrinsic is the ascending AC at level 1, such as armor and dex adjustments.


In a game with no levels, I suppose one way of differentiating harder monsters from weaker ones is by their number of hit points and whatever special abilities the monsters have.

Quote from: ggroy;365332Levels are easier to track mathematically for things like better AC, to-hit attacks rolls, etc ... in D&D.

In practice, the to-hit number of a target roughly scales as:

d20 roll vs.

11 + AC_intrinsic + (level_target - level_attacker).

AC_intrinsic is the ascending AC at level 1, such as armor and dex adjustments.


In a game with no levels, I suppose one way of differentiating harder monsters from weaker ones is by their number of hit points and whatever special abilities the monsters have.

No I get that but why fantasy and not Spies or Superheroes or Pulp Noir or Radiated turtles?

(PS level makes no difference low level guys fight low level mosters, medium leve guys fight medium level ....etc generally the same number of hits from a 10th level fighter will kill a '10th' level moster as hits from a 3rd level fighter will kill a '3rd level' monster. It all comes down to playing round with the new special powers)

In games where there's no levels, there may be another form of character advancement.  One way would be the player characters improving their skills, stats, etc ... after using them successfully.

A game with no character advancement whatsoever, would probably get boring after awhile.

Quote from: jibbajibba;365334No I get that but why fantasy and not Spies or Superheroes or Pulp Noir or Radiated turtles?

Spycraft has levels.  (But it's a d20 derivative).

Not really sure why other non-d20 game genres don't always have levels like D&D.

Quote from: jibbajibba;365334(PS level makes no difference low level guys fight low level mosters, medium leve guys fight medium level ....etc generally the same number of hits from a 10th level fighter will kill a '10th' level moster as hits from a 3rd level fighter will kill a '3rd level' monster. It all comes down to playing round with the new special powers)

I suspect the leveling thing is largely to "pace" the game, so that (for example) a clueless DM doesn't bring something like a god to fight level 1 players.  If for nothing else, it's probably to make DMing a bit more foolproof in this regard.  (Though it doesn't always succeed).

Quote from: ggroy;365335In games where there's no levels, there may be another form of character advancement.  One way would be the player characters improving their skills, stats, etc ... after using them successfully.

A game with no character advancement whatsoever, would probably get boring after awhile.

You say that and I agree that an advancement mechanism is pretty much an RPG standard, up there with combat rules and attributes. But I can't recall ever getting better at anything in Traveller. I got better kit more money, power, a planet this one time (well it was more of an asteroid but ...). And generally with skils advancements and the like a character that has been through say half a dozen games isn't vastly better than the starting character.

Quote from: jibbajibba;365334No I get that but why fantasy and not Spies

Spycraft. Ninjas & Superspies.

Quoteor Superheroes

Well, there are some, but they aren't particularly good. I'd go further and assert that superheroes in particular are a tough fit for Class/Level systems because whereas some related skill sets can logically be ganged together into classes, this is much less true of superpowers which can go any-which-way.

Quoteor Pulp Noir

Hopefully it won't be too long before we see 10 Thousand Bullets completed.

Quoteor Radiated turtles?

As far as I can tell, the ONLY Radiated Turtle game is level based.

QuoteIt all comes down to playing round with the new special powers)

So, what's this pretending not to understand thing?

More generally, it's Operant Conditioning (psychology of rewards) and Campbellian heroes at work in game form. The latter, of course, makes more sense in a fantasy setting.

Quote from: jibbajibba;365341And generally with skils advancements and the like a character that has been through say half a dozen games isn't vastly better than the starting character.

How fast character advancement goes, I suspect is largely determined by the game and how it is conducted by the GM.  I haven't played Traveller enough to know how fast character advancement works.

Quote from: Silverlion;365329Maybe read my game when its done..

If I read your game I will understand fantasy? Cool!

-clash

Quote from: jibbajibba;365334(PS level makes no difference low level guys fight low level mosters, medium leve guys fight medium level ....etc generally the same number of hits from a 10th level fighter will kill a '10th' level moster as hits from a 3rd level fighter will kill a '3rd level' monster. It all comes down to playing round with the new special powers)

Word.

-clash

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;365342As far as I can tell, the ONLY Radiated Turtle game is level based.

Yeah I can remember nothing about TMNTAOS excpet for one game at uni back in 89 that lasted a fortnight so I threw that one in as a punt

But I still don't get why its good to start tough in a spy game or cyberpunk but starting as tough in a Fantasy Game is seen as a sin against the holy dieties of RPGs.

Quote from: jibbajibba;365323i) Why do fantasy games adopt a level model? Is it just D&D heritage?
ii) Why do people have a go at 4e for starting characters tough (whilst longing for the halcyon days when they could die from tripping up and often lost 2 or 3 characters a week) when they are happy to play a harden ex-merc in a cyberpunk game or a superhero that can fly and spurt flame from their fingertips? Aren't we looking to play in games where our PCs can do the same stuff as characters we see in movies or read about it books? Is it all Frodo's fault?
iii) How does D&D get away with hitpoints because its sword and arrows even though the same players woudl balk at it if it was bombs and bullets?

i) Several points supporting a level-based design model:

First, it makes the learning curve progressive. You start with a few basic abilities, and the options increase as you raise levels. Second, it makes character progression easier on people. Rather than consider tons of options all at once, or tons of options as soon as you get an EXP, cross next to your skill or whatever, you get small bundles of abilities every once in a while. You don't have gazillions of choices to make, some of them are already made by the way the level-bundle is built. Third, Operant Conditioning, as mentioned above. Progressive steps are thought to make the acquisition of power more visible, and more rewarding rather than just getting 1 point here and there every session. Fourth, the Campbellian Hero indeed. The character that starts out as a mundane, normal child who gets an invitation to adventure, gets out in the world and changes progressively as a result up to the gates of Hero status. Levels themselves could be seen as doorsteps, or gates along the way.

ii) Different players will search for different things while playing a role-playing game. Further, the original game was built on a wide variety of different sources and assumptions. Players may or may not embrace said sources and assumptions. There's nothing wrong with it. You might try to understand these assumptions better if you didn't already, or you might search for another game (or build one) that fits your own aims with role-playing games better.

iii) Hit Points are not a straight representations of "health" and "wounds". They are a combination of these, plus moves, plus fatigue, plus vitality, etc. There have been interesting separations made between Wound Points and Vitality Points in various d20 games, with varying degrees of success. The original game abstracts the nature of hit points to more than straight health, however, which explains why this value may raise with experience, as you learn to keep your energy during a fight, deflect some of the force of certain blows, and so on so forth. Now, hit points are just one amongst several possible ways to do it in RPGs. It just happened to be the one favored by the original game.

One thing that levels do is prevent hyper-overspecialization, which can be a problem in some skill-based games in which often the only way to be competant at combat is to suck at pretty much everything else. In a level-based game there's a limit to how much of that sort of thing you can do.