How Much is Too Much?
As many a tabletop role-player does, I am working on my own system. I've been working on it for about a year. It started out with a random blend of ideals, but it has evolved to something I have quite enjoyed thus far. In the beginning, nothing was balanced well enough, but since then I have matured as a gamer and learned how things should be done.However, this is not merely an advertisement. I have some notes and questions.My system is quite rules-heavy when it comes to combat. It functions without classes. HP, statistic modifiers, and so on are primarily determined by race (of which there are twenty-nine to choose from). There are twenty schools of magic with twenty spells each. Most importantly: There are one thousand levels. One thousand levels brings up a few points. I considered listing some here, but writing out an explanation would make this look like I was just saying "Look what I can do!"What do people find to be a preferred level maximum?I dislike D&D because it has only twenty levels to play. I like to gain levels, I admit it. In my eyes, systems are there for the progression, the levels, the loot, the gaming. If I wanted to role-play by itself, I would just free-style RP (which I do sometimes). When I play a system, such as D&D, Final Fantasy P&P, or my own system (which is rare, I mostly just play-test it right now), I want to feel like my character is advancing.But that doesn't mean that one should gain levels after every encounter. Thanks to my trusty calculator, I found out it would take twenty-one years for the average party to reach level one thousand. That's a little high. On the other hand, I dislike seeing high level characters within a couple months. In my opinion, I prefer it to take time, but for progress to be visible to the characters.I'm curious as to what other people think of the subject. If you enjoy gaining levels slowly, please explain why. I would very much like to know. If you enjoy gaining levels quickly, I'd also like to hear that. If you prefer systems without levels, I'd be quite thankful for an explanation. My primary reason for playing systems is the fun of rising levels. Without that, a group could all agree on general guidelines of characters' abilities and free-style it all.Note: To avoid people yelling at me for this, I want to make it clear that rising levels and become "teh 1337 haxorz!11!1!1" is not my focus. I role-play because I enjoy role-playing. However, I play a system because I enjoy the satisfaction of gaining that shiny new ability I've just earned.So, what's your opinion?
- Login to post comments
Since the G in RPG stands for Game, I've always thought there should be some sort of reward for playing the game. Sure, playing is often its own reward...but, still...
I have no issue with XP and Level based games -- this approach may not be as streamlined as Point-based systems...but, I ain't got no beef with it.
1000 levels might be over-shooting it, tho. But, I don't think there's anything "wrong" with having 1000 levels...so long as the challenges of the game can supplement those high levels.
My longest running player recently hit 17th level. He's a wizard...and we're using the 1st Edition XP system. Thus, he only goes up a level for every 375,000 XP earned. That takes a while...and he's been playing this guy for 6 years now. After 6 years, he still can't cast 9th level spells. Some folks have told us that we're going too slow and all that...but, we're cool with the pace and we're enjoying the fact that we're actually going through the motions of making this character a legend in his own world.
As long as any player continues to play a character, I'll reward them with due XP and levels. Our goal isn't to get to Level X. We're not shooting for Level 1000 "just because." But, if we play enough games...and if by some strange chance we amass that much XP...then I'll bestow the appropriate level. I don't believe in cheating playering out of XP / levels just because of some "house rule" that another group adheres to.
So...in short terms...I don't think there should be a level cap so long as the players are doing good role-playing. If they legitimately earn enough XP to get to level 1000...then make them level 1000.
I love building and customization from a skill point of view, but not from a attribute aspect: I could care less that I have 18 STR or 32 DEX, because that doesn't really /mean/ anything to me. I do, however, love knowing that I have multiple special attacks like a Mortal Kombat sorta system, or that I have 324 breeds of magick, of which only 100 may be actually useful ("change lawn chair furniture to dust? woohoo!"). So, I'd much rather have a Level 500 character with 300 skills than a Level 500 character with +40's on my attributes. Concerning progression, if Level 1000 is possible, I'd want to get a new level every other play sessions or so, but again, this comes from a "often useless" skill standpoint, as opposed to +1 on munchkin.
I hate level based systems. My problem with them is because I like the "role" aspect of roleplaying. The best thing about point based systems is that you can customize your character. I don't like black and white, cardboard cutout characters. I love all the shades of gray that real characters embody.
I love advancing my character in the game. I love earning skills, spells, and whatnot. I do this by playing my characer to the best of my ability as the character. With a level based system I find that players tend to do things to get to the next level to the detriment of their characterizations and the story in which they are part of. The players may attack a wandering band of orcs because all they need is 30 more points, but if they were playing true to their characters then they'd hide from the orcs instead. That kind of stuff always bothered me.
Another thing about level based games that annoy me is hit points. Your level 17 and I'm evel 1. Your character kind stand there and let my character chop at you with a sword (assuming that my character can hit you even though you're just standing there) for a couple of rounds before you kill me with one well placed blow. That's crap. Give a 12 year old a sword and let him hack at you just to see how much you can take. Go ahead, I dare you... No? Didn't think so...
Sorry. I get a little passionate about the drawbacks to level based games...
"If you never try anything new, then you'll miss out on many of life's great dissapointments."
My defense for hit points has always been that at higher levels, an adventurer has learned to dodge better than what he could at lower level. A long sword does 1D8...but it has less relevance to a high-level adventurer 'cause his adventurer's instinct allows him to dodge more of the blow...these are instincts that he probably didn't have at 1st level.
So...a guy does 8 points of damage to 2 guys. One has 8 hit points...so, boom, he goes down with a cut across his chest. The other guy has 80 hit points...so, 8 points is only about 10% of his HP...so, he get hits, but not as bad as the other guy...maybe a bad cut on the leg or arm...or something.
Many games...even D&D...suggest that if anybody looses a certain percentage of hit points, then you should roll to see if they survive the shock of loosing so many HP all at once. Thus...when people allow their 80 hit point guy to take 40 points of damange without seeing if he keels over dead...they're not really playing by the rules.
I admit that level based games have their pitfalls, but some of these philosophies have helped me get around the ever-present HP issue.
"I hate level based systems. My problem with them is because I like the "role" aspect of roleplaying."
So do I. I play level based systems. Clearly, the problem is not with the systems.
"I love earning skills, spells, and whatnot. I do this by playing my characer to the best of my ability as the character."
You don't gain skills, spells, and whatnot by playing the character. You get them by erasing the "+6" on your character sheet and writing down "+7."
"The players may attack a wandering band of orcs because all they need is 30 more points..."
I can't speak to other games, but in DND you gain experiences by overcoming obstacles. It doesn't matter if you kill them, sneak past them, trick them, or negotiate with them, if you get past the orcs that are an obstacle to your goals, you get the XP. If they're not an obstacle, then you get no XP no matter HOW you interact with them.
"Your character kind stand there and let my character chop at you with a sword (assuming that my character can hit you even though you're just standing there) for a couple of rounds before you kill me with one well placed blow."
There's a rule for this in DND. It's called a "coup de grace" and you can use it against anyone that isn't defending himself in any way. Hit points don't matter; save or die.
None of your arguments make any sense, Calamar.
>I can't speak to other games, but in DND you gain experiences by overcoming obstacles. It doesn't matter if you kill them, sneak past them, trick them, or negotiate with them, if you get past the orcs that are an obstacle to your goals, you get the XP. If they're not an obstacle, then you get no XP no matter HOW you interact with them.
That's pretty much new with the whippersnapper that is 3rd Ed. I know it confuses a lot of young players these days, but once upon a time the default mode across the *D&D range was "If you don't kill it, you don't get experience for it".
That attitude hasn't exactly miraculously disppeared. While all these comments may not make sense to people who have only been exposed to the new rules (and non H&S/MH GMs), the vast bulk of gamers know exactly what he means :)
Understood...and agreed...and been there, done that...
...but, I feel this odd compulsion to state that the oldskool attitude towards XP was partially the fault of the gaming community. Gygax himself stated in 1st Edition that players are free to modify / throw out rules as they desire. Unfortunately, it was too great of a leap in logic for many players to realize that they could reward XP for things other than kill counts and treasure.
I see Rules Sets as guidelines and suggestions...not necessarily The Undisputed Law -- I've adopted this mentality due to the narrow-mindedness of the gamers I played with in the late 80's. Even by the mid 90's, D&D were putting out products that suggested that XP be rewarded for things other than killing and looting...you can see this in the Planescape and Dark Sun products, for example (where rangers get XP for tracking and wizards get XP for doing wizard work, etc. -- Planescape hoped that you figured out a way to get out of a fight rather than get into one).
So...yes, I agree, that in the old days XP was generally only available via death and looting. But, I feel that was a failing of the player community rather than the products, per se. It's certainly a debatable viewpoint...but, I wouldn't want to use the guys I played with in 1989 to argue that it was the game, not the players.
I understand Vaxalon, I really do. I get it. 3rd ed. has new rules governing everything. Big deal.
After several years of new rules, contradictions, and having to rewrite the rulebooks just to make them playable some of us gave up on D&D and move onto games that started off great and didn't need all the changes and revisions. It is a sad state of affairs when the biggest (but definately not the greatest) roleplaying game and the company that produces it can't seem to get a decent product out to the gamers.
I have to admit that the 3rd ed books LOOK cool. They're illustrated much better than anything you'll find in any other game system that I know of. Which reminds me of an old adage about judging a book by it's cover...
I've stated in other posts that I haven't played 3rd ed very much. I just don't like it, although I do have to admit that it's head and shoulders above 1st and 2nd ed. It's still a level based system with all the problems associated with level based systems. Who cares if they added even more rules to nullify the fact that if you just stand ther, I could kill you in a hit.
I'll give you an example:
While playing Darksun one of my players, playing a halfgiant fighter with a 24 St attacked and hit a halfgiant npc with a 2-handed axe. The player had called the shot to the spine (the npc was bent double at the time) and had rolled a critical hit. The blow did about 50 points to an unarmoured foe. To the spine. On a critical hit. The NPC, being much higher in levels (at least 10 levels higher, I can't remember), had over 140 hit points. According to the rules, because the blow did less than half the npc's hit points in damage, even though the damage was to the npc's SPINE, the NPC was able to shrug off the blow and fight back. This was the last straw. We started searching for a better game system the next day and after a year or so settled on GURPS with MERPS running pretty close behind. (I guess we had a thing for games that end in "rps"...)
Now, how would 3rd ed handle this any differently? With or without adding a bunch of extra rules to it?
"That which does not kill me propones the inevitable."
Here's how I would have handled that. I would have made the npc roll a fortitude save with a DC of 10 + the damage taken, or else be paralized. And I don't think that added a bunch of extra rules either.
There's no "called shot to the spine" in DnD. You either attack for damage, attack to subdue, attack a carried object, or coup de grace.
If you were attacking in order to do maximum damage, to a foe that could defend himself, that's an attack for damage. If you were attacking to do maximum damage, to a foe that couldn't defend himself, that's a coup de grace. Save or die.
You say you were playing "Darksun," by which I assume you mean Dark Sun, which was a 2e setting. I'm not familiar with 2e rules, so I don't know if there was a coup de grace rule there, but I doubt it.
That's if you want to avoid adding rules to the system.
If you want to add rules, there's a called shot/critical hit system from Bastion Press called "Torn Asunder" that gets really good reviews.
It appears to me that you folks had a bad experience with 2e. I agree that it was crap. Condemning 3e because of problems with 2e is like refusing to test drive an Explorer because the Edsel was so bad.
Vax, I know that D&D doesn't have called shots. But most GMs will allow players to do so if asked. A lot of Gms, including myself, require it. Calling a shot is much more descriptive and visual than "I hit him." It adds to the roleplaying experience to know that you just shot and crippled the evil blademaster's swordarm instead of just doing six points of damage.
Of course, the GM has the added work of figuring damage and the effects for the arm as opposed to the body or torso. Playing a game system that already incorporates these ideas into the game mechanics or core system is much easier to deal with than a game that doesn't or a game that does, but only in this or that supplement.
I'm pretty sure that you can find a rule governing almost any situation or rule that you want to in D&D. D&D has been out for 30 years and is the biggest and most popular roleplaying game ever despite all of it's flaws. However, like I have stated before, why would I take the time and effort to research all of these obscure rules when I can play a system that already uses them? I'd much rather spend that time and effort crafting a campaign for my players.
Just FYI, I haven't yet given up on playing D&D 3ed quite yet. I haven't found a GM worth their salt who's willing to run it in my area. I'm still lookin' though. I am about to start a new game called Earth Dawn soon, which is a level based system, so we'll have to see how that goes...
"If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem."
Playing a game system that already incorporates these ideas into the game mechanics or core system is much easier to deal with than a game that doesn't or a game that does, but only in this or that supplement.
This is my feeling exactly, Vaxalon. You seem to think that d20 has a rule to cover every situation, but it doesn't. When pressed on the matter, you seem to want to go to variant rules, relatively obscure articles, or supplemental rulebooks. Those aren't core rules, and some of them haven't been playtested nearly as well!
What's so wrong with admitting that it's a matter of personal taste? The simple explanation for me is that the feel of a d20 combat is very different from the feel of a GURPS combat, and that not everyone prefers the streamlined, abstract approach d20 takes.