The Problem With Levels...
... isn't, per se. Of course, it's still a problem, or challenge, anyway.
Though I'm thinking of this in application to "tabletop" RPGs, I find it easier to illustrate using CRPG examples.
I remember pushing my sprite-based characters across an overworld map and entering a new dungeon. A few steps in, the screen would go swirling and it was time to do combat. A couple rounds later, my valiant heroes lay crumpled upon the ground and I was reloading a saved game. This was a sure sign it was time to go back to gain a few more levels and probably upgrade equipment. It's how game designers paced their games. Skip too much of the content and you get your ass handed to you until you go back and gain levels.
More recently, Bethesda Softworks put out Oblivion. Their approach to this situation (and there are probably earlier ones, this just comes to mind) was to scale opposition to the character level. When you run into bandits at level 2, they're equipped with leather and low skills. At level 17, they're wearing high-end armor and are better. This is probably closer to the approach most GMs take in tabletop games: as characters increase in power, they battle more powerful opponents.
The problem with this is one of internal consistency and logic. "If commoners are low level and don't gain experience," which is true in most games for unimportant backdrop characters, "where did these level 17 bandits come from all of a sudden? If they were here before, why didn't they take over and retire?" Scaling the world off of the PCs provides an even challenge to them, but gives the world no life of its own. That approach makes the setting more a mechanical thing than a flavorful thing - it feels there to balance against/with the PCs rather than feeling like a living world in its own right.
But... while this is most clearly state with levels, it isn't actually a problem with levels so much as it is advancement. Point-based systems mask the issue a little, but it's still there. Whether the difference is 5 levels or 500 points, you get the same PC-centric power creep.
But what do do about it?
Well, it's perfectly possible to play a game with that very sort of situation, yet never have it be an issue. Some groups don't ask "why?"
Or, I suppose, you can embrace it. Exalted sort of takes this approach, I think. There are ridiculously powerful things out there and they only haven't rained down destruction before because "now" is the tipping point - you better get moving.
Or... what? Play a game without measurable advancement like that? I suppose there are some (Kyn going to chime in about Dogs here?), but advancement is a fairly big draw of the genre. Players like continuing sagas because they can see their characters grow. Heck, in the video game market, advancement seems to be a qualifier (slap some XP-increased skill point levels and a couple dialogue trees in Halo and they'd market it as a FPS-RPG). A lot of people don't like slow advancement and/or level caps (example: Fallout 3).
So... I don't know. To me, someone who does ask "why?" and who likes advancement there doesn't seem like any ideal solution...
Though I'm thinking of this in application to "tabletop" RPGs, I find it easier to illustrate using CRPG examples.
I remember pushing my sprite-based characters across an overworld map and entering a new dungeon. A few steps in, the screen would go swirling and it was time to do combat. A couple rounds later, my valiant heroes lay crumpled upon the ground and I was reloading a saved game. This was a sure sign it was time to go back to gain a few more levels and probably upgrade equipment. It's how game designers paced their games. Skip too much of the content and you get your ass handed to you until you go back and gain levels.
More recently, Bethesda Softworks put out Oblivion. Their approach to this situation (and there are probably earlier ones, this just comes to mind) was to scale opposition to the character level. When you run into bandits at level 2, they're equipped with leather and low skills. At level 17, they're wearing high-end armor and are better. This is probably closer to the approach most GMs take in tabletop games: as characters increase in power, they battle more powerful opponents.
The problem with this is one of internal consistency and logic. "If commoners are low level and don't gain experience," which is true in most games for unimportant backdrop characters, "where did these level 17 bandits come from all of a sudden? If they were here before, why didn't they take over and retire?" Scaling the world off of the PCs provides an even challenge to them, but gives the world no life of its own. That approach makes the setting more a mechanical thing than a flavorful thing - it feels there to balance against/with the PCs rather than feeling like a living world in its own right.
But... while this is most clearly state with levels, it isn't actually a problem with levels so much as it is advancement. Point-based systems mask the issue a little, but it's still there. Whether the difference is 5 levels or 500 points, you get the same PC-centric power creep.
But what do do about it?
Well, it's perfectly possible to play a game with that very sort of situation, yet never have it be an issue. Some groups don't ask "why?"
Or, I suppose, you can embrace it. Exalted sort of takes this approach, I think. There are ridiculously powerful things out there and they only haven't rained down destruction before because "now" is the tipping point - you better get moving.
Or... what? Play a game without measurable advancement like that? I suppose there are some (Kyn going to chime in about Dogs here?), but advancement is a fairly big draw of the genre. Players like continuing sagas because they can see their characters grow. Heck, in the video game market, advancement seems to be a qualifier (slap some XP-increased skill point levels and a couple dialogue trees in Halo and they'd market it as a FPS-RPG). A lot of people don't like slow advancement and/or level caps (example: Fallout 3).
So... I don't know. To me, someone who does ask "why?" and who likes advancement there doesn't seem like any ideal solution...
Hmm. I think it depends on the approach. I just got struck with the idea of 'use'. Your progression isn't so much a 'always getting better' but 'improving things you use, while things you don't use decline'. This becomes a bit of a balancing act for the player -- where your sheet is modified by the things you use. A few points here, a few points there, but if you regularly neglect things, they start to slide back, and some may vanish altogether. Perhaps the degree of decline is slower than the degree of progression -- this would make sense, because you use only a small handful of skills and attributes at a time, while you'd have a whole bunch of skills that you don't use.
ReplyDeleteHave you played any game that does this? I've seen "improve through use" systems, but not so much "and unused traits decline in balance." I think it's been used in a computer game or two, but I don't recall seeing that personally.
ReplyDeleteNope, never seen it in use.
ReplyDeleteChime Dogs doesn't use levels to show advancement, true. It and another game I tout, Spirit of the Century, care about traits. Traits can fluctuate, be gained or lost, but ultimately the 'growth' you talk about occurs in the sense that the character changes in demeanor and behavior and thought more than numbers on the page. Let's take a game with no level growth in it at all. Don't Rest your Head. You get 3 attributes and 2 powers. The attributes can change during play, but never go above a certain value. Those 2 powers can change, but are pretty much definition of your character. Other than that? Nope. All change is non-quanitiiable growth, reaching goals (or not) and how that affects your character. Here's another: Prime-Time Adventures. Your character's power is determined by what part in the story arc they have screen-presence, never more, never less (barring a bit of fudging through the fan-mail system). There are alternatives to level-based games that still have character growth and development. Just happens to often not have numbers after it. Y'know, like RL.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't need a game to "play" Real Life. ;) It's good to see that there are alternative systems. I just have trouble visualizing how they play out in the long run. Maybe we (and by that I mean "myself and other like me" not "all gamers" or even really "you") have been spoiled in a sense by D&D. I have an expectation of seeing some sort of numeric advancement with ongoing characters. I see games like that and my mind tends to file them as suitable for one-shots or groups just getting together for relatively casual play once in a while. In my study so far, I remain unconvinced that Dogs is a game "for me." It feels like the types or stories and growth its geared for do not mesh with the types of stories I want to tell/participate in.
ReplyDeletePerfectly, utterly, entirely understandable. You gave it a shot (such as it was) to see how it would go. I can always try to hook you (for non-level style) on Prime-Time Adventures, Don't Rest your Head, Spirit of the Century, Reign, Houses of the Blooded, or (semi levelled) Iron Claw, Legend of the Five Rings or we all wait for the Dresden RPG ;)
ReplyDeleteWell, no, I wouldn't say I've given it a shot yet. I've gone through most of chargen to see how that goes. I haven't really seen it in play, though. Iron Claw? Aieeee! *hides* I don't think I've ever seen any other dice system that made me feel as strongly that "man, this is craptastically counter-intuitive" outside home-brew games that only the GM really understands. ;) I have to admit I never really got past that aspect of the game to see what the rest was like.
ReplyDelete