Quote from: LordVreeg;365728On a somewhat anecdotal level, throughout my gaming life and game design forays, I have always believed in later variations of the psychological dynamic to improve and grow, as a group and on a persoanl level.  After watching player after player display some of their greatest satisfaction in their earned character growth, it was one of the game dynamics I believe translates easiest to the gaming table.
So it is also one of the few sacred cows of game design for my table.  I was very careful to include smaller scale but regular level mechanisms, because I think this is one of the greatest positive player reinforcers for a campaign.

I am still not entirely convinced. I really enjoyed traveller games and (and this may well be heresy on this site) we never really assigned XP in D&D through any kind of systemeatic method. It usually ran 1. play campaign for a year 2. DM - are you guys still only 5th level? okay you can have 4000 XP each. I mean I have a thief I played in about 5 year long campaigns plus numerous one shots and 'weekenders' (you know where you all get 2 days off and play 2 x 20 hours days back to back) over 15 years and I think he's 9th level now. The XP isn't the important bit playing the game is the important bit.

I think a lot of this is similar to how modern video games (and MMOs in particular) are designed;

//www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

Its all about keeping you playing...

Quote from: Simlasa;365676I know that impulse must be there, the MMOs are full of those sorts of penis contests... but I've never gotten even the slightest enjoyment out of that in a tabletop RPG.
If I wanted competition I'd play a proper wargame... and sometimes I do... but when I'm doing RPG I want cooperative play.
I'm probably in the minority on that though.

Comparing and contrasting (i.e. a discussion or a conversation) does not necessarily equate to competition or penis measuring for some people.

Jesus, it's not that tricky a concept to grasp, is it?

No, the point of playing isn't the 'grind' as the disingenuous put it. The point of playing is having fun playing a game with friends or new acquiatances.

However, the level structure not only neatly bundles up your abilities in bite-sized chunks instead of a steady drizzle in non-level games, it serves as a Scale.

If a game, for example has levels 1 to 30, then anywhere along that scale you know where you are in relation to the grand scheme 9whatever that might be - other characters, the world at large, or just as something to look forward to after a hard adventure),

Quote from: jIBBA

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegOn a somewhat anecdotal level, throughout my gaming life and game design forays, I have always believed in later variations of the psychological dynamic to improve and grow, as a group and on a persoanl level. After watching player after player display some of their greatest satisfaction in their earned character growth, it was one of the game dynamics I believe translates easiest to the gaming table.
So it is also one of the few sacred cows of game design for my table. I was very careful to include smaller scale but regular level mechanisms, because I think this is one of the greatest positive player reinforcers for a campaign.

I am still not entirely convinced. I really enjoyed traveller games and (and this may well be heresy on this site) we never really assigned XP in D&D through any kind of systemeatic method. It usually ran 1. play campaign for a year 2. DM - are you guys still only 5th level? okay you can have 4000 XP each. I mean I have a thief I played in about 5 year long campaigns plus numerous one shots and 'weekenders' (you know where you all get 2 days off and play 2 x 20 hours days back to back) over 15 years and I think he's 9th level now. The XP isn't the important bit playing the game is the important bit.

Don't be so quick to assign a nominal scale to this.  The game play is the thing; without it the progress reinforcers are contextless.  I agree that without the play, the reinfocement is useless.  
but this,

Quote from: Jibba"DM - are you guys still only 5th level? okay you can have 4000 XP each"

basically sends the message that the quality of the game play is irrelevant, players will break level when it is convenient for the GM.  
In a meaningful sandbox campaign, for example, with reoccurring NPCS and consistent threat levels, it is very gratifying for the PCs to see the their position in the world change in gameplay.  PCs still run into the same things that inhabited an area; the world does not change (unless the PCs or the storyline changes it).
In other words,

Quote from: Jibba(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)

This would NEVER happen or hold true in any game I run.  And I apologize in advance for how that sounds, but it is connected to the previous comment.  Yes, PCs that grow can face greater threats, but the world does not change around them.  The duke who held them prisoner a year ago in game time is not a lot tougher than he was when he held them prisoner, nor have his guards all gotten tougher.  And if the PCs show up there and want a piece of him (and they have assessed the rest of the possible ramifications), i'm certainly not going to make the duke the right challenge level, that does nothing to build versimilitude.  
Which may be one of my big buggaboos, it does not have to be yours...

I don't know how the concept of "experience levels came about originally. Was there something like this in miniatures war games? Like maybe a "veteran" status for certain units?

I do know that one of the reasons they keep the idea of levels in fantasy games, other than an easy way to balance challenges to the overall efficacy of the group...is a reward mechanic.

Reward mechanics help keep players invested in the game, by giving them something to look forward to during play. Videogames have adopted this model as well, which is why many, regardless of genre, now have "RPG elements." such as a leveling system or skill/weapon upgrades, etc.

I know that ideally, the game should be it's own reward, but personally I really enjoy playing games with some sort of reward system to them. I like to make decisions about my characters both in and outside of the game.  I like to have my characters accomplishments reflected on my character sheet, usually in the form of higher numbers.

Quote from: LordVreeg;365777but this (...)  basically sends the message that the quality of the game play is irrelevant, players will break level when it is convenient for the GM.  
In a meaningful sandbox campaign, for example, with reoccurring NPCS and consistent threat levels, it is very gratifying for the PCs to see the their position in the world change in gameplay.  PCs still run into the same things that inhabited an area; the world does not change (unless the PCs or the storyline changes it).
In other words,

(...)

This would NEVER happen or hold true in any game I run.  And I apologize in advance for how that sounds, but it is connected to the previous comment.  Yes, PCs that grow can face greater threats, but the world does not change around them.  The duke who held them prisoner a year ago in game time is not a lot tougher than he was when he held them prisoner, nor have his guards all gotten tougher.  And if the PCs show up there and want a piece of him (and they have assessed the rest of the possible ramifications), i'm certainly not going to make the duke the right challenge level, that does nothing to build versimilitude.  
Which may be one of my big buggaboos, it does not have to be yours...

Excellent example.

I was struggling to put the same argument regarding sandbox game play into words, and you nailed it here. Kudos.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365784I don't know how the concept of "experience levels came about originally. Was there something like this in miniatures war games? Like maybe a "veteran" status for certain units?

Estar addresses the issue of the concept's origins in post 19:

Quote from: estar;365381There is no grand design in the use of levels. It evolved out of the Fantasy Supplement for Chainmail. Where a Hero was worth 4 men and a Super Hero 8 men. Wizards has a similar legacy from Chainmail. As D&D grew out of Chainmail levels of progression was seen as the natural away to handle the experience gained on adventures.

Quote from: Benoist;365786Estar addresses the issue of the concept's origins in post 19:

Ahh. Good to know.

See also Mike Carr's Fight in the Skies WWI aerial dogfighting boardgame in which players kept the same "pilot" from game to game and he gained experience and increased in skill the more games he survived (including a table for determining if your pilot survives and what happens to him when he gets shot down). Carr was friends with both Gygax and Arneson and FITS predates D&D by several years (and is, in fact, the only game to have been on the schedule at every GenCon from 1968 to the present).

Quote from: T. Foster;365794See also Mike Carr's Fight in the Skies WWI aerial dogfighting boardgame in which players kept the same "pilot" from game to game and he gained experience and increased in skill the more games he survived (including a table for determining if your pilot survives and what happens to him when he gets shot down). Carr was friends with both Gygax and Arneson and FITS predates D&D by several years (and is, in fact, the only game to have been on the schedule at every GenCon from 1968 to the present).

That game sounds damn cool.

Quote from: T. Foster;365794See also Mike Carr's Fight in the Skies WWI aerial dogfighting boardgame in which players kept the same "pilot" from game to game and he gained experience and increased in skill the more games he survived (including a table for determining if your pilot survives and what happens to him when he gets shot down). Carr was friends with both Gygax and Arneson and FITS predates D&D by several years (and is, in fact, the only game to have been on the schedule at every GenCon from 1968 to the present).

I have Dawn Patrol and I was able to get my grandfather to play it with me back in the late 80s.

Quote from: Drohem;365814I have Dawn Patrol and I was able to get my grandfather to play it with me back in the late 80s.

That rocks. I just felt privileged when my Pap bought me a beer at the VFW, getting him to game would have been scary and most likely impossible.

Quote from: LordVreeg;365777Don't be so quick to assign a nominal scale to this.  The game play is the thing; without it the progress reinforcers are contextless.  I agree that without the play, the reinfocement is useless.  
but this,  basically sends the message that the quality of the game play is irrelevant, players will break level when it is convenient for the GM.  
In a meaningful sandbox campaign, for example, with reoccurring NPCS and consistent threat levels, it is very gratifying for the PCs to see the their position in the world change in gameplay.  PCs still run into the same things that inhabited an area; the world does not change (unless the PCs or the storyline changes it).
In other words,



This would NEVER happen or hold true in any game I run.  And I apologize in advance for how that sounds, but it is connected to the previous comment.  Yes, PCs that grow can face greater threats, but the world does not change around them.  The duke who held them prisoner a year ago in game time is not a lot tougher than he was when he held them prisoner, nor have his guards all gotten tougher.  And if the PCs show up there and want a piece of him (and they have assessed the rest of the possible ramifications), i'm certainly not going to make the duke the right challenge level, that does nothing to build versimilitude.  
Which may be one of my big buggaboos, it does not have to be yours...

Can't be bothered to split the quotes, sorry in advance.
You mixed a couple of quotes of mine there. the point about the gm giving out XP when they remembered it was totally not the idea tha the game play was irrelevant. It was about the fact that none of the players really cared about levelling we only cared about roleplaying. If I can trick the duke into thinking I am his long lost son, get into the treasure chamber and sneak out, if we can come up with tactics that let 3 of us defeat 13 ogres, If I can find a way not to have to fight that dragon ... that matters getting rewarded with levels for doing it meh who cares about that. The point is we don't play to get rewarded and we always have exceptionally good game play because why would we ever do anything else? and our position ion the gameworld changes totally its just our levels that don't So that 9th level thief and the 9th level barbarian he adventured with did run a kingdom and build up a massive navy, an army and a spy network, we just forgot to ask for xp for doing it:)

My bit about levels not mattering cos you always fight things the same level as you was a joke about 4e encounter building sorry I should have used an emoticon.

Oh and one of my favourite thing is to have dukes or 'archmages' or High priests who are 1st level but really good at politics.

Quote from: JIBBA

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreeg WITH NO SENSE OF HUMORDon't be so quick to assign a nominal scale to this. The game play is the thing; without it the progress reinforcers are contextless. I agree that without the play, the reinfocement is useless.
but this, basically sends the message that the quality of the game play is irrelevant, players will break level when it is convenient for the GM.
In a meaningful sandbox campaign, for example, with reoccurring NPCS and consistent threat levels, it is very gratifying for the PCs to see the their position in the world change in gameplay. PCs still run into the same things that inhabited an area; the world does not change (unless the PCs or the storyline changes it).
In other words,



This would NEVER happen or hold true in any game I run. And I apologize in advance for how that sounds, but it is connected to the previous comment. Yes, PCs that grow can face greater threats, but the world does not change around them. The duke who held them prisoner a year ago in game time is not a lot tougher than he was when he held them prisoner, nor have his guards all gotten tougher. And if the PCs show up there and want a piece of him (and they have assessed the rest of the possible ramifications), i'm certainly not going to make the duke the right challenge level, that does nothing to build versimilitude.
Which may be one of my big buggaboos, it does not have to be yours...

Can't be bothered to split the quotes, sorry in advance.
You mixed a couple of quotes of mine there. the point about the gm giving out XP when they remembered it was totally not the idea tha the game play was irrelevant. It was about the fact that none of the players really cared about levelling we only cared about roleplaying. If I can trick the duke into thinking I am his long lost son, get into the treasure chamber and sneak out, if we can come up with tactics that let 3 of us defeat 13 ogres, If I can find a way not to have to fight that dragon ... that matters getting rewarded with levels for doing it meh who cares about that. The point is we don't play to get rewarded and we always have exceptionally good game play because why would we ever do anything else? and our position ion the gameworld changes totally its just our levels that don't So that 9th level thief and the 9th level barbarian he adventured with did run a kingdom and build up a massive navy, an army and a spy network, we just forgot to ask for xp for doing it

My bit about levels not mattering cos you always fight things the same level as you was a joke about 4e encounter building sorry I should have used an emoticon.

Oh and one of my favourite thing is to have dukes or 'archmages' or High priests who are 1st level but really good at politics.

Ok, about to go into a meeting, but a quick snippet...
I understood and can see how important the game play is to you; it should be for everyone.  And the bit about the GM giving out the EXP may not seem to say how well the pc's perform is irrelevant, but it does.  You were asking why we use leveling.  And one of the reasons is humans crave context and self-actualization.  We like getting better.  We like competing as a team, socially, and within ourselves.  
Now, your gaming crew may not have used this particular reinforcer.  But many other games do, and it really is a motivator.  That's the big picture there.  For a very large % of gamers, it provides a real sense of achievement/reinforement/actualization.

And as for the last bit, I do the same thing, but it looks more like
"basic Soc L6 17%,  Sub1 Social Dynamic L4 11%+17%=28%, Sub2 Barrister L2 8%+17%=25%
basic courtly manners L7 12%,
basic Leader L7 21%, sub1 exhort L1 6%+21%=27%, sub2 Organize L1 4%+21%=25%"