Quote from: Drohem;366096"Why didn't the giant eagles that rescued Sam and Frodo from the destruction of Mt. Doom just fly them there in the first place?"

And the clerk replies with something to the effect of:

"It's about the journey."

I'm gonna be completely stupid and take that question seriously for just a second and say that if they had tried, the Nazgul would bitch-slapped them right out of the sky. At least that's how I would have written it. Well, honestly I wouldn't have had them try it. Huh, guess Tolkien did just fine then

Quote from: Sigmund;366106I'm gonna be completely stupid and take that question seriously for just a second and say that if they had tried, the Nazgul would bitch-slapped them right out of the sky. At least that's how I would have written it. Well, honestly I wouldn't have had them try it. Huh, guess Tolkien did just fine then

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU .....

Quote from: Drohem;365878In 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.'  

:idunno:

Those damned invisible words everyone is seeing just don't show up on my monitor.

I can't be arsed to read the rest of the thread.

Quote from: estar;366009But 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.

But you still always get additional hit dice and increased base attack bonus as you advance, yes? In other words, D&D/D20 has a unidimensional metric of advancement which boils down to "you WILL get better at fighting". For spellcasters, this is also largely true (not only more HD & BAB, but also more spells), I believe, although moreso in 4e from what I understand. (What I mean is: it gets somewhat muddied by multiclassing in 3e.)

Compare BRP or GURPS: when you get XP, nothing requires you to increase your combat abilities.

In this way D&D really is different from any skill-based system, and D&D's popularity/influence has pulled other games along with it, especially fantasy games.

Now about the rest of what you wrote. (I'm trying to keep other posters' comments in mind.)

Essentially you're the proponent of what we might call a "historical contingency" theory: fantasy games use levels because D&D used levels; D&D used levels for reasons that may have an historical reason (such as "gamist" roots in early roleplaying) but which aren't fundamental to fantasy per se.

I recognize the historical argument but I'm also putting forward an "essentialist" theory: fantasy games use levels because fantasy is more compatible with the idea behind levels, that is, personal development expressed as increased combat ability. In turn, that type of development is the most accessible/popular, which creates a positive feedback loop between audience and design.

I just want to clarify where the argument lies--anything more and I'd just be repeating myself.

About "why do fantasy characters start weak", I feel that's a little different. LV is surely onto something with the fact that 1st-level D&D characters used to be not much different from regular people, and that supported immersion/verisimilitude/what-have-you. D&D though probably has the weakest starting characters of any fantasy game I know. Yet most of the other games, fantasy or non-fantasy, don't give an impression of starting characters being made of markedly different stuff compared to regular people. Possibly a lot of this is just due to the use of the hit point mechanic. It's easier to swallow the idea of someone being "more skilled", so they've got ~50% in a weapon and a defensive skill compared to random shlub's 15%, than it is to accept a starting character with 30 HP compared to a peasant's 4 HP. Yet that percentage difference has a similar effect on survivability, especially when you add gear into the equation. In fact, the choice of AC instead of armor-absorbs could also be a factor.

So do you suppose that if D&D had originally been a skill based game like GURPS/Runequest would it have become as popular as it did? Even if just for the novelty of being the first? (lots of 'firsts' don't make it too far once the competition arrives).
If D&D had started out RPGs as skill-based would level-based have still come along? Would they have become the more popular style of game (regardless of genre)?
Is there something inherently 'gritty' about skill-based games vs. level based ones?

I don't know. Those questions have been argued over the years, I'm sure. If levels in the D&D fashion hadn't popped up, it would have made a huge difference not only in RPGs but also in computer/video games. So it's hard to imagine a world without them.

Side note: when I wrote "XP" in relation to CoC, of course I don't mean literal experience points, which don't exist in BRP. I just mean "experience"...characters get better in BRP/CoC, but they don't have to get better in combat just because they improve in other areas.

There are lots of non-fantasy games that use Levels.
It is true, however, that among fantasy games, there is a higher percentage of level-using games than in other genres.

So the answer is that obviously, this is a legacy from D&D.

I happen to think that its a good one, because I think that generally speaking, there's nothing particularly wrong with Levels.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;366174But you still always get additional hit dice and increased base attack bonus as you advance, yes?

D20 has the multi-class rule which makes it work more like a chunky skill system than a pure level system. So while technically yes you get better at combat and saving throw regardless of what you pick the RATE at you get better is totally under the player's control.

It only convention that classes must have an increase in combat ability. The system will work just find with classes that offer advancement in everything but the to hit bonus.

With the diversity of d20 options one probably could find a combination of classes and prestige classes that leave you with a +0 to hit.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;366174For spellcasters, this is also largely true (not only more HD & BAB, but also more spells),

Not in d20, spell casters avoid an advancement in the number of spells they can cast by picking other classes.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;366174Compare BRP or GURPS: when you get XP, nothing requires you to increase your combat abilities.

Yes but there nothing about the system that would stop a GM from implementing non-combat classes that could do what you describe.

D20 is probably one the best hybrids of the level-skill system so far developed. It offers the customizations of skill based system but still uses the level system to simplify things.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;366174In this way D&D really is different from any skill-based system,

For editions 2.0 or older I will agree with this statement.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;366174and D&D's popularity/influence has pulled other games along with it, especially fantasy games.

I agree with with the caveat that D&D's influence came into two big pulses. The first in the 70s with the advent of RPGs and the second with 3.0 which is due to the OGL and the d20 SRD.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;366174Essentially you're the proponent of what we might call a "historical contingency" theory: fantasy games use levels because D&D used levels; D&D used levels for reasons that may have an historical reason (such as "gamist" roots in early roleplaying) but which aren't fundamental to fantasy per se.

It not a theory it how it worked in the beginning. RPGs were a novel form of gaming and entertainment. The early years consisted of a lot of "Oh that how you do it" moments and a lot of "Oh that didn't work out too well." By the 80s enough that good and bad examples of RPGs piled up that a novice game designer could learn from experience. Before then it was a lot of hit or miss and the only sure fire system that worked (especially for fantasy) was D&D.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;366174I recognize the historical argument but I'm also putting forward an "essentialist" theory: fantasy games use levels because fantasy is more compatible with the idea behind levels, that is, personal development expressed as increased combat ability. In turn, that type of development is the most accessible/popular, which creates a positive feedback loop between audience and design.

It has nothing to do with fantasy. It has to do that level+dungeon+other D&D trope is both simple and complex enough to create an enduring game. It is easy to learn, can be extended, and combined with the other elements of RPGs ignited a fad and a new hobby.

It similar to chess, monopoly, clue, etc. Gygax and Arneson had the genius to combine the right elements to create an enduring game. And it was a rare instance where the FIRST actually got it right from the get go.
 

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;366174D&D though probably has the weakest starting characters of any fantasy game I know. Yet most of the other games, fantasy or non-fantasy, don't give an impression of starting characters being made of markedly different stuff compared to regular people.

D&D Combat and advancement was abstract, and through the early days of RPGs the general reaction against D&D was to make a more realistic game. When developing a new RPG almost nobody picked a level system as a mechanic.  By the mid 80s there was a turnaround in attitude as RPGs expanded in genre and settings. By then a lot of designers realized that complex is not always good. While most still didn't use levels the RPGs afterwards became more varied in their complexity and mechanics.

There is no natural fit between mechanic and genre other the fact that D&D spawned a culture of gamers that persists to this day. Level based advancement feels natural to us for fantasy because we all grew up with D&D. But if you pick an other Fantasy system to play and stick it for a couple of decades then it will be become the natural feeling system. Like GURPS for my group.

You know Estar, I ejoy your writing a lot, and respect your opinion.
I'm too tired to go through it all now (I might in the AM), but I think I'm with Eliott on this.  It does have to do with fantasy and the inspirational lit and such behind it.  I think, for the very beginning, the first games  came into being, in fits and starts, based on modelling what Gary and Co were reading/inspired by.

Quote from: ElliotI recognize the historical argument but I'm also putting forward an "essentialist" theory: fantasy games use levels because fantasy is more compatible with the idea behind levels, that is, personal development expressed as increased combat ability. In turn, that type of development is the most accessible/popular, which creates a positive feedback loop between audience and design.

Quote from: Simlasa;366225So do you suppose that if D&D had originally been a skill based game like GURPS/Runequest would it have become as popular as it did? Even if just for the novelty of being the first? (lots of 'firsts' don't make it too far once the competition arrives).
If D&D had started out RPGs as skill-based would level-based have still come along? Would they have become the more popular style of game (regardless of genre)?
Is there something inherently 'gritty' about skill-based games vs. level based ones?

If D&D had started out skill-based I think that would have been the default.  When TFT came out it grew rapidly, before the whole company imploded for reasons unrelated to sales of TFT, if i recall correctly.

Quote from: Simlasa;366225Is there something inherently 'gritty' about skill-based games vs. level based ones?

Star Wars D6. Totally skill based. Gritty? Not so much.