Quote from: LordVreeg;365868Ok, 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%"

I can see that you can see what I mean:) but if we hadn't performed well we would be dead or The Zaquinquartette would be ruling the ruby Kingdom in our stead so...
But back to the nub of my argument. Why would the same players need confirmation of achievement with level progression in D&D but not require that same feedback in Traveller or CoC? Is it just a gamist thing, 'because that is how D&D works?' and are games that don't reward you weaker as OHT suggested?

Quote from: jibbajibba;365871But back to the nub of my argument. Why would the same players need confirmation of achievement with level progression in D&D but not require that same feedback in Traveller or CoC? Is it just a gamist thing, 'because that is how D&D works?' and are games that don't reward you weaker as OHT suggested?

In all seriousness, are you being disingenuous here?  I mean there are plenty of games outside of the fantasy genre that are class-and-level, or just level, based systems.  I went back and read all of OHT's posts in this thread and I can't find anywhere where he claimed that non-level based games are 'weaker.'  

Why is it so difficult to grasp that a level-based system is easier for most people to glance at casually and get a sense of relative positions in relation to other characters, NPCs, and the power structure of said game system?

Quote from: jibbajibba;365871But back to the nub of my argument. Why would the same players need confirmation of achievement with level progression in D&D but not require that same feedback in Traveller or CoC? Is it just a gamist thing, 'because that is how D&D works?' and are games that don't reward you weaker as OHT suggested?

D&D - because level = how many fighting-men you were equal to do. A 2 HD monster was worth 2 fighting men which as the same as a 2nd level fighter. This concept proved easy to understand and enduring.

Traveller- Because Marc Miller and the GDW felt that their sci-fi game worked better if you broke down what the characters could do into separate areas and gave each area a level rating generated while making up a character.

CoC- Because Runequest was used as a base in the form of Basic Roleplaying and that came about because a bunch of West Coast SCA (Society for Creative Anarchonisms) felt that D&D was too abstract and they wanted to visualize their combat more easily.

There is a lot of over analyzing going on here and not a lot of attention to the history. The history provides the reason why each of the major types of RPG system evolved. Time and the market showed which of these system proved enduring. (For example not too many people try to go and emulate Chivalry and Sorcery)

Quote from: estar;365886There is a lot of over analyzing going on here and not a lot of attention to the history. The history provides the reason why each of the major types of RPG system evolved. Time and the market showed which of these system proved enduring. (For example not too many people try to go and emulate Chivalry and Sorcery)

I agree that the history provides the reasons why the major game systems came to be. Where I think the analysis is worthwhile is to provide some of the reasons why so many gamers embraced these ideas over time and therefore, some of the reasons why they endured as well.

I'm still not entirely clear on whether the issue is specifically the "leveling" mechanic or "getting better" in general. I mean: TFT didn't have levels. GURPS doesn't, either, and I'm sure it's widely used for fantasy. But both games have the PCs getting better over time, through "experience". Even RQ and CoC have that.

But D&D not only uses levels but its levels are much larger leaps in power compared to similar progression in many other games, especially outside of fantasy. And I don't mean that a 1% increase in one skill in BRP is less than a one-level increase in D&D. I mean that D&D characters over the course of their entire career can become many times more powerful than when they started, while a BRP or TFT character is only going to be a few times more powerful, by most metrics. (E.g., the number of "zero-level men-at-arms-equivalents" you can reasonably face in one fight.)

What it boils down to though is this question is based on a false premise:

QuoteWhy would the same players need confirmation of achievement with level progression in D&D but not require that same feedback in Traveller or CoC? Is it just a gamist thing, 'because that is how D&D works?' and are games that don't reward you weaker as OHT suggested?

The same players aren't playing D&D as Traveller or CoC. There's some overlap but D&D blows the others out of the water in terms of popularity. For people who want to play "levels" in other genres, the games exist that do just that. For people who want to play fantasy without levels...or with a fairly flat advancement curve...there are games that do that.

As I see it, the question only makes sense if you phrase it as "Why are levels/advancement most popular in fantasy games, and not as popular in other genres?"

And here we have a bunch of answers that have been presented in the thread. Without looking back we have:

Influence of D&D
Fantasy as the most popular genre -> the most popular fantasy games will tend to offer the most straightforward paradigm for play
Fantasy is a genre that's most amenable to concepts of "personal improvement"

But behind it all is the fact that the audience of fantasy games is a different set of people from the audience for other genres.

I do think JJ is on to something here.  Fantasy is perfectly fine with levels which really means classes, while modern and sci-fi tend not to be.  Of course there are many exceptions, but I think the concept generally holds true.

I think it's because Modern and Sci-fi characters, even if they are Elves or Aliens, are still Modern.  They're closer to our personal experiences then say a medieval or fantasy world.  We look back and see roles like Knight, Wizard, Priest, Peasant, Merchant and think "class" and in a sense we are right, there would have been very little cross-over either in medieval history or most fantasy worlds.  We look at ourselves or forward and we think "job" not "class".  Most of us have changed our skillsets multiple times and hardly any of us hold the same job we held when we first reached adulthood.  We think of modern people in terms of skills, not roles you hold for life. Going along with a Modern frame of mind is the idea that it doesn't matter really what you do, the only true measure of success is money - money to replace that fusion coil, money to upgrade your wired reflexes to stay on the bleeding edge, money to get the loansharks off your back.

That's why I think classes and levels in Fantasy seem right, where in a Modern or Sci-Fi game classes and levels feel awkward and forced and skill systems make more sense.

Quote from: CRKrueger;365895I do think JJ is on to something here.  Fantasy is perfectly fine with levels which really means classes, while modern and sci-fi tend not to be.  Of course there are many exceptions, but I think the concept generally holds true.

I think it's because Modern and Sci-fi characters, even if they are Elves or Aliens, are still Modern.  They're closer to our personal experiences then say a medieval or fantasy world.  We look back and see roles like Knight, Wizard, Priest, Peasant, Merchant and think "class" and in a sense we are right, there would have been very little cross-over either in medieval history or most fantasy worlds.  We look at ourselves or forward and we think "job" not "class".  Most of us have changed our skillsets multiple times and hardly any of us hold the same job we held when we first reached adulthood.  We think of modern people in terms of skills, not roles you hold for life. Going along with a Modern frame of mind is the idea that it doesn't matter really what you do, the only true measure of success is money - money to replace that fusion coil, money to upgrade your wired reflexes to stay on the bleeding edge, money to get the loansharks off your back.

That's why I think classes and levels in Fantasy seem right, where in a Modern or Sci-Fi game classes and levels feel awkward and forced and skill systems make more sense.

I agree and disagree.  And I've openned another bottle of Barolo, and that might be part of alll of that.

I agree (and love) the fact you see the advent of social mobility as part of the issue.  Fantastic.

But I need to move this further.  Fantasy is exactly that, for many people.  Moedrn and Scifi is oftem more 'gritty', as I have said before, and less heroic.  Skill based is more realistic because it models the ability to change and learn (social mobility) but also because characters taking as much damage as a team of warhorses (and yes, I know the silly analogies of 'luck, skill, divine powers, etc', that were used to explain HP to those that bought it) or 12 other combat trained troops is the opposite of 'gritty realism'.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;365894I'm still not entirely clear on whether the issue is specifically the "leveling" mechanic or "getting better" in general. I mean: TFT didn't have levels. GURPS doesn't, either, and I'm sure it's widely used for fantasy. But both games have the PCs getting better over time, through "experience". Even RQ and CoC have that.

TFT started as Melee a simple man to man combat game revolving around two attributes ST and DX. Wizardry was added along with IQ and the two later combined into TFT.  The game was popular because thanks to Steve Jackson's genius as a game designer it was one of the simplistic combat system around that felt "realistic".  The attribute were chosen the way they were because the game used 3d6 to resolve actions.

Later when Steve Jackson failed to secure the rights to the TFT he developed GURPS which shares similar ideas but takes them in a different direction. GURPS in it's 1st and 2nd edition form was easy for a D&D player to pick and learn.

Runequest (and other Basic Roleplaying Games), Fantasy Hero, and GURPS all felt natural for D&D players to switch to because their attributes had a similar scale to that of D&D.  Plus the earliest edition didn't have the overwhelming number of choices as later editions and it was easy to see what to pick to replicate your favorite D&D class and race.

The basic setup in the 80s was D&D, other fantasy rpgs, and other genres. If an RPG was for another genre they owed little to D&D other than the concept of RPGs. If the RPG was a fantasy RPG the more successful one were those that that felt natural for D&D players to switch two among these I could GURPS, Fantasy Hero, Rolemaster, Palladium, Tunnels & Trolls, and Runequest. The one that did their own thing rarely did well and the market was littered with their corpses.  The major exception is that if they did a fantasy sub-genre, like Bushido, very well but even them quickly faded compared to the natural switches. A few like Harnmaster managed to survive out of the 80s but not many.

Now all this is obscured by the fact that all of the RPGs I mention quickly became their own thing in later edition to the point where for many their D&D roots were all but gone.

I'm not sure where you're going with that narrative, Rob. I mean I agree with all you say, but how does it relate to the overall questions?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;365342More 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.

I would further propose that, while highly unlikely to be a conscious decision, the literature cited in the DMG and oft mentioned as inspirational to the design of the game was most often found in series form.  So, looked at from a certain angle, Conan was one way in his first book, gradually taking on larger and more dangerous challenges as the series progressed (don't quote me on specifics, I am sure it went back and forth).  Similar to most of the series mentioned, the protagonist starts out mundane and unknown and rises through the ranks.

Viewed in this light, each 'adventure' can be considered a chapter, each 'level' a book in the series of novellas about the PC.

Which isn't a counter argument to your point by any means, I have a feeling the psychology is a large factor in the structure of levels.

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.

Sorry I haven't explained myself well I wrote hte last post whilst watching a horizon show about the origins of Dark Matter and Dark Energy and so was distracted.

Eliott hits one of my main questions with this "Why are levels/advancement most popular in fantasy games, and not as popular in other genres?"

And my question isn't really historical as to the various game origins but why the level paradigm didn't fly for Scifi and thence Modern games and the 'gritty' argument holds some traction but if you look at the fantasy literature I don't think its so different from the Scifi of the same period. The Grey Mouser vs the Stainless Steel Rat, Aragorn vs James T Kirk...

The second thust and one of the reasons this thread first occured to me was from the Lethality thread on Pundits own Forum the majority of posters said they liked the fact that in early editions of D&D lots of low level characters died. I argued that I thought this damaged immersion rather than protecting it (an endless supply of supposedly exceptional individuals who happen to be resident in a nearby town,tavern or wizards academy) and from that I wondered why people exepted this in fantasy and thought 4e was 'broken' because you started tough and early death was not a risk compared to most SciFi and modern games where you start far tougher (and as an aside improve far less as time goes by).

So apologies if i didn't get that across clearly and the whole arguement became entangled in the origins of levels

Quote from: jibbajibba;365970And my question isn't really historical as to the various game origins but why the level paradigm didn't fly for Scifi and thence Modern games and the 'gritty' argument holds some traction but if you look at the fantasy literature I don't think its so different from the Scifi of the same period. The Grey Mouser vs the Stainless Steel Rat, Aragorn vs James T Kirk...

The situation resulted from how roleplaying games developed not because of any other reason. That my point. It is just random happenstance that it worked out the way it did.  In an alternate universe it could have been Fantasy Games that were skill based and other genres level based.

That is up unto the late 80s by which time game designer had a wealth of past examples to learn from in developing new RPGs. But even with that happening the older traditions still persisted. I would say that until D20/3.0 that the vast majority of new RPGs took a skill based approach.

But even the D20 approach is more of a chunky skill system than a true level RPGs like original D&D. You get your packages of abilities and skills in chunks called levels instead of skill points or build points.

Quote from: jibbajibba;365970The second thust and one of the reasons this thread first occured to me was from the Lethality thread on Pundits own Forum the majority of posters said they liked the fact that in early editions of D&D lots of low level characters died. I argued that I thought this damaged immersion rather than protecting it (an endless supply of supposedly exceptional individuals who happen to be resident in a nearby town,tavern or wizards academy) and from that I wondered why people exepted this in fantasy and thought 4e was 'broken' because you started tough and early death was not a risk compared to most SciFi and modern games where you start far tougher (and as an aside improve far less as time goes by).

So apologies if i didn't get that across clearly and the whole arguement became entangled in the origins of levels

It about risk vs reward. For many part of the appeal of RPGs is the sense of accomplishment one gets by overcoming the challenges that are set before them. That includes the risk of character loss. Knowing that if you make a mistake you will lose your character permanently.

For older editions of D&D surviving at 1st or 2nd level is a challenge the margin is very thing. Even if all you are facing are 1 HD monsters the risk is very much there.  Remember in Chainmail, D&D's immediate ancestor, 1 hit equaled a death of a normal man or 1st level character. All original D&D did was change that 1 hit to 1d6 damage and 1d6 hit points. The system was still designed that if a 1st level character took even one hit they would likely die.

With 4e  the game has been redesigned that the margin of survival is much broader. At first level you can still really only face 1st level encounters but the drawn out combats and the number of options that you have a lot more room to bail if things go south.  I seen this other games like Runequest, GURPS, Fantasy HERO. The options of tactically rich combat system allow you to survive more easily by dragging out combat. This is style of play is fundamentally different than older editions of D&D.

You say you don't want to hear the history of RPGs but all of the answers to your questions are found in the history RPGs. The situation continues to persist because of the initial D&D fad that founded the hobby and later the d20 fad gave level based system new life in 2000. The d20 also expanded the use of levels in  non fantasy genres.

Quote from: jibbajibba;365970Sorry I haven't explained myself well I wrote hte last post whilst watching a horizon show about the origins of Dark Matter and Dark Energy and so was distracted.

Eliott hits one of my main questions with this "Why are levels/advancement most popular in fantasy games, and not as popular in other genres?"

And my question isn't really historical as to the various game origins but why the level paradigm didn't fly for Scifi and thence Modern games and the 'gritty' argument holds some traction but if you look at the fantasy literature I don't think its so different from the Scifi of the same period. The Grey Mouser vs the Stainless Steel Rat, Aragorn vs James T Kirk...

The second thust and one of the reasons this thread first occured to me was from the Lethality thread on Pundits own Forum the majority of posters said they liked the fact that in early editions of D&D lots of low level characters died. I argued that I thought this damaged immersion rather than protecting it (an endless supply of supposedly exceptional individuals who happen to be resident in a nearby town,tavern or wizards academy) and from that I wondered why people exepted this in fantasy and thought 4e was 'broken' because you started tough and early death was not a risk compared to most SciFi and modern games where you start far tougher (and as an aside improve far less as time goes by).

So apologies if i didn't get that across clearly and the whole arguement became entangled in the origins of levels

No apologies, this thread is actually moving and doing more than Shit-stirring because of the attempts to move the conversation and explain things in terms of the fine-tuning of the OP.

1)-- in terms of modern/sci-fi...I have tried to explain one angle of this, but I must be doing a bad job.  Please compare Aragorn and James T Kirk, in terms of what they do in their genre, and you will see the ugly gritty thing surfacing again.  You are right to look at the inspirational literature, since the directions the different rulesets went to is certainly not an accident.  As with all history, something preceeded, something came before.
Aragorn lived 210 years.  He's a six foot six inch warrior, descended from the greatest human bloodline in the history of the world, with elvish blood as well as human, rightful heir to the largest kingdom in a continent, confidant to a semi-divine being,  etc, etc.  In a few major battles, Aragorn fights and slays all comers, defeating dozens of combatants, fights the Dark Lord ( another freakin semi-divine) mentally for the possession of the Palantir, etc, etc, etc.  In all things, he may be percieved as above all other humans he comes into contact with, and this is very much dependent to his birthright and internal factors.
James Tiberious Kirk's popularity is due to his very humanity, as is the whole Star Trek canon.  Whereas Aragorn is born special, it is Kirk's very humanity that endears us to him.  He is vain, he is rash, he makes mistakes, and we recognize ourselves in that.  Aragon is born into an incredibly hard destiny, Kirk forges his destiny himself.  Aragorn lives for his extended time becasue of birthright, Kirk finds an external source to extend his life.  Kirk has huge tools....a certain starship comes to mind.  But Kirk is never superhuman, and having him get shot with phasers set to kill 6-7 times would not happen.  Simply put, James T Kirk does not have 200+ hit points.  Aragorn might.

2) In defence of lethality and realism---You are not wrong that an endless supply of 'above-averages' running around a small area is a threat to immersion.  It's just not as much as a threat as a system that starts characters pretty close to the power level of an average peasant vs a system that starts them already in the super-human classification.  that is a part you are missing.  Early game versions were lethal early on because the characters were not a lot tougher than the local folk.  I find Estar's comment about the history of the game very useful here, since the hero and super hero being very, very unusual in the world.  
4e should never be considered 'broken' for what it does, it was designed for specific types of games.  You can talk about lethality, or powers, or growth, but what much of the issue comes down to is the scale of power of PCs compared to the scale of power of regular folk in a town.

Quote from: estar;366009The situation resulted from how roleplaying games developed not because of any other reason. That my point. It is just random happenstance that it worked out the way it did.  In an alternate universe it could have been Fantasy Games that were skill based and other genres level based.

That is up unto the late 80s by which time game designer had a wealth of past examples to learn from in developing new RPGs. But even with that happening the older traditions still persisted. I would say that until D20/3.0 that the vast majority of new RPGs took a skill based approach.

But even the D20 approach is more of a chunky skill system than a true level RPGs like original D&D. You get your packages of abilities and skills in chunks called levels instead of skill points or build points.




It about risk vs reward. For many part of the appeal of RPGs is the sense of accomplishment one gets by overcoming the challenges that are set before them. That includes the risk of character loss. Knowing that if you make a mistake you will lose your character permanently.

For older editions of D&D surviving at 1st or 2nd level is a challenge the margin is very thing. Even if all you are facing are 1 HD monsters the risk is very much there.  Remember in Chainmail, D&D's immediate ancestor, 1 hit equaled a death of a normal man or 1st level character. All original D&D did was change that 1 hit to 1d6 damage and 1d6 hit points. The system was still designed that if a 1st level character took even one hit they would likely die.

With 4e  the game has been redesigned that the margin of survival is much broader. At first level you can still really only face 1st level encounters but the drawn out combats and the number of options that you have a lot more room to bail if things go south.  I seen this other games like Runequest, GURPS, Fantasy HERO. The options of tactically rich combat system allow you to survive more easily by dragging out combat. This is style of play is fundamentally different than older editions of D&D.

You say you don't want to hear the history of RPGs but all of the answers to your questions are found in the history RPGs. The situation continues to persist because of the initial D&D fad that founded the hobby and later the d20 fad gave level based system new life in 2000. The d20 also expanded the use of levels in  non fantasy genres.

Sorry you are explaining half of the question, which is why D&D is leathal but you aren't saying why the same players don't feel the need for a Spy game or a star wars game to be as lethal. That is what I am questioning.

As for Aragorn vs J T Kirk I might have made a faux pas picking JT and my image of Aragorn is going to be coloured by Viggo as I think he is great in that role and so I have a gritty image of him (sorry yet more heresy ) . Try Stainless steel rat Vs the Grey Mouser instead