Why high level exists, and the problems.

[K]

OK, you can make a playable game without levels. For example, Shadowrun is perfectly playable as long as you want to play as long as you understand that you will never run a magacorp, never make so much nuyen you can have tech researched for you, or be able to outfight immortal elves in face paint. At best, you go from being an expert in one thing to being an expert in many things.

That being said, heroic fantasy games do have levels. They simulate the heroic arc where the youth barely outfights the orc chasing him from his burning village, and by the end of the arc he curbstomps Gruumish with a sword stolen from Lolth.

Self-empowerment fantasies and plot aside, levels are important for making your game world believable. The story about questing for the resurrection of the king can't be told in a world without someone who can raise the dead. By the same token, that story can't be told if the player can wake up, study for ten minutes, and bring the king back. It is in the time between those two phases that the story is told, and the very nature of the system of levels means a point will be reached when those stories are no longer meaningful.

The problem with the level system is that appropriate-sized challenges must exist at all points in a character's career. That creates another problem in storytelling; it's hard to get someone to buy into a world that only gives you challenges you can beat.

Now the solution to that problem has always been to be a Gygaxian douche. Killing players off has been a time-honored tradition of fantasy RPGs and has led to an arms race of healing and resurrection magic.

My solution to the problems of high level is this: don't let players die, and don't adjust monsters for levels. Make it an essential premise of your game that players don't die and that XP is only gained for successful missions, and players have an upfront understanding of how difficult things are to their relative level so they know when they are pushing their luck and when heroic withdrawal is a sound way to preserve their progress toward their XP goals.

Ok, that is the seed of the idea. Comments?

[shadzar]

While I don't deny your idea to work, I have a few solutions to not have to worry about high levels. Slower advancement. You don't have to always gain levels in order to keep playing.

Also if high levels are a problem where the game has gone from bending to breaking, then just don't play them. Make sure the game ends prior and either rotate to another DM, or retire the characters either way, and start new ones.

The game doesn't always have to be with the same characters.

Myself, I enjoy having a character die as often a having one live. Not being able to have my character die, defeats my ability and work to keep him alive....but others may prefer that style of play.

[Koumei]

Slower advancement.

That's a terrible idea. I like rapid advancement, and "BAWWW, I'm too stupid to be able to make a fun game for high level characters!" isn't a good reason to slow my fun.

I feel that, assuming one session == one episode, games should follow the advancement schedule of Gurren Lagan: episode one sees the main character piloting a mecha smaller than a car. Episode 4 sees him combining it with a bigger mech, to give something Gundam-sized. In Episode 8 he has a motherfucking Emperor Titan. I'm still sad over Bro dying (spoiler) and am going to wait for my next pay before I continue the series, so I don't know how crazy it gets after that. Apparently by the end of it he has a robot bigger than the largest galaxy currently known to mankind.

K: that could work really well, actually. I like the idea.

[shadzar]

Slower advancement.

That's a terrible idea. I like rapid advancement, and "BAWWW, I'm too stupid to be able to make a fun game for high level characters!" isn't a good reason to slow my fun.

Just because you are too stupid doesn't mean others are.

Also not everyone requires instant gratification in the way of new abilities in order to get enjoyment from the game.

There are campaigns of 1st edition still being played on a regular basis today that started when it came out, with the same characters. How many levels was that? Doesn't matter, they are only at level 8 so far.

So video game mentality is not required in an RPG.

You CAN progress at a slower rate to avoid problems of a broken high level game system. It is a viable option, whether you choose it or not.

[Koumei]

Just because you are too stupid doesn't mean others are.

Learn to read, you stupid [EDITED]. I pointed out that others being stupid is why they can't make fun games for high level players. Seriously, 9/10 times the real problem is the DM wants to run a plot that can be countered by a level 2/3/7 spell and they blame the system. They don't understand that "Fetch me a ladder" is a boring-if-acceptable 1st level mission, but not even on the table after level 10, unless that specific ladder is located within a planar lockdown in the 8th level of Hell, in a bubble of acid (it's an acid-proof ladder), guarded by prinnies.

Also not everyone requires instant gratification in the way of new abilities in order to get enjoyment from the game.

It's not all I need, but it sure helps, and to not include it, there had better be a good reason - just like lesbians and spellcasting are inherently awesome, and thus leaving either out makes the game less good on some level, so there should be a really good reason to do so, such as "We're playing a game set in Shoujo Kakumei Utena, which doesn't have spellcasting" or "In this game, everyone's a lizardman. I don't want to think about the sexuality of lizards."

So video game mentality is not required in an RPG.

Protip: video games are so varied (aside from PC games; every PC game in the last 100 years is a WWII multiplayer shootan game) that you can get away with calling anything video game mentality. It's an insult that doesn't mean anything, much like most of what you ever say.

You CAN progress at a slower rate to avoid problems of a broken high level game system. It is a viable option, whether you choose it or not.

You can also drink bleach and hit yourself in the crotch with a hammer. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Likewise, other options include "playing a different game where there are no high levels" or "shooting your players in the face as soon as the game reaches high levels". But they're also pretty bad options.

tl;dr: shut the hell up. Forever, preferably.

[hogarth]

My solution to the problems of high level is this: don't let players die, and don't adjust monsters for levels. Make it an essential premise of your game that players don't die and that XP is only gained for successful missions, and players have an upfront understanding of how difficult things are to their relative level so they know when they are pushing their luck and when heroic withdrawal is a sound way to preserve their progress toward their XP goals.

Ok, that is the seed of the idea. Comments?

It's a reasonable idea, although I'm cool to the idea of having weak characters trying over and over again to defeat an excessively hard challenge (hoping for a fluke), knowing that there's not any severe penalty for failure.

[Gelare]

Time it takes for shadzar to show up and derail the thread: 1 post. Thanks for failing to address K's idea at all and trying to steer discussion in what is literally the least helpful direction ("Actually, that problem isn't a problem, it's just that you have badwrongfun!").

Anyway, K, I've had that idea floating around for a while, but am unsure how to execute it. You could have players plan their own missions, but that's not always easy, and not always fun (for the players). Presumably you would get a series of adventures at just below what the PCs can handle, but you might also find that they make the adventures significantly easier than what they can handle, and just grind, grind all day long in a steady march toward level n+1.

You could also have a number of outstanding quests at any given time, arranged by difficulty (curbstomp, challenge, instant death), but that gets really hard and obnoxious for the DM, who has to constantly come up with adventure seeds his players won't use, and makes it hard to plan for a session since you don't know which track the PCs will go down.

[Tequila Sunrise]

My solution to the problems of high level is this: don't let players die, and don't adjust monsters for levels. Make it an essential premise of your game that players don't die and that XP is only gained for successful missions, and players have an upfront understanding of how difficult things are to their relative level so they know when they are pushing their luck and when heroic withdrawal is a sound way to preserve their progress toward their XP goals.

Ok, that is the seed of the idea. Comments?

I just got done explaining to my DM why the 'PCs never die' rule sucks. Without even a remote risk of death via extreme stupidity or extreme bad luck, combat is a bore. If there's zero chance of death, why am I not going to CharOp to copy one of their 'this build can theoretically kill stuff before it takes action, so it doesn't need positive defense values' builds?

My preferred way of playing and DMing is for most encounters to be within standard defeatable guidelines, but to occasionally have encounters where the players can curbstomp everything and glory in their earned power and occasionally have encounters where the PCs are clearly outmatched and should run.

And yeah, XP for completed goals is the way to go.

[Username17]

They simulate the heroic arc where the youth barely outfights the orc chasing him from his burning village, and by the end of the arc he curbstomps Gruumish with a sword stolen from Lolth.

The story about questing for the resurrection of the king can't be told in a world without someone who can raise the dead.

These are both true, but actually wholly unrelated and the solutions are extremely different. If you want to tell the story of any post-Tolkienian hero you want them to be at one point or another scared of whatever goblin stand-ins you use (ex.: Trollocs or Wights), and to at some later date fight the big bad who has an actual army of those things. That requires a lot of vertical advancement within the game, so it requires a lot of vertical advancement potential in the game system. But the desire to tell a story where the players have to go enlist the aid of so-n-so in order to access some ability none of the PCs have to help thwart the big bad - that doesn't require any vertical advancement at all. That requires that there be a lot of horizontal development options.

Indeed, the D&D procedure of "wait until you are level X to access this power" is singularly terrible at actually getting the "go talk to [InsertName] the Sage" quest off the ground. After all, if [InsertName] has some power you guys don't, chances are he is much higher level and could be reasonably expected to kack your big bad for you. The fact that he is jizzing some high powered bullshit on you and then sitting back and laughing while you fight a mid boss you can barely handle makes both him and the DM who put him there a total ass hole.

The ideal would be for there to be enough horizontal options on the table that there are substantial numbers of useful abilities of the player's level or lower that they do not personally have. When they go questing for a Blue Mage to transmute their friend from stone into flesh again, the Blue Mage they get should be equal or lower in power to the team. The party can then go do things for this guy without triggering the old "this guy can kick all our asses together, why doesn't he clear out this goat crabs his own self" response so amazingly common in D&D quest formats.

The game wants there to be enough room for power growth that you eventually crawl into the Demon Web Pits and slay a fiendish god spider. The game wants there to be enough variety in potential character abilities that players continue to interact with the campaign world at all levels.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

The ideal would be for there to be enough horizontal options on the table that there are substantial numbers of useful abilities of the player's level or lower that they do not personally have.

I notice that in Superhero stories the kind of thing where heroes hunt down one of their buddies or a quest-giver or whatever so that they can solve a quest are pretty close to non-existent.

Yes, superhero teamups are common but they're done for vertical power gain, not horizontal. If the adventure is 'Brother Blood shows up and starts acting the fool', the solution isn't that Cyborg finds Psychic-Canceller lad and defeats him, the solution is that Cyborg calls on every favor he has to either whup his ass with More Dakka or does a Temporary-But-Dangerous-Upgraydde to whup his ass With More Dakka.

In situations where something can't be solved by vertical power gain, calling upon superheroes is also rare. Superheroes are expected to do their own research and their own planning. If someone a superhero knows is shot with some weird petrifying serum, the first reaction is not to head down to Dr. Strange's office; Spider-Man researches a cure, Daredevil tracks down the pharmaceutical lab and steals a cure, Iron Man pretends to bribe the assassin with cash for another job and beats on him until the assassin cures their buddy, etc. Now calling upon Dr. Strange is done, but that's only for the purposes of fast-forwarding the plot. Those kinds of adventures are never 'find this guy and suck on his cock until he does this thing', those are 'we don't have time to research our own cure for Statue Aunt May, not while Ultron is afoot. Let's outsource this job and spend the actual adventure kicking some ass'.

I ultimately think that paradigm is more satisfying than the one heroic fantasy uses. Less 'damn, the king got ganked again. Let's find a cleric', more 'damn, the king got ganked again, I'm going to the Underworld to beat on Hades ass with my sword until he frees the king's soul'.

[Username17]

I notice that in Superhero stories the kind of thing where heroes hunt down one of their buddies or a quest-giver or whatever so that they can solve a quest are pretty close to non-existent.

How can you "notice" something that is not true?

You're talking about almost every single Justice League Unlimited Episode. So we got episodes like Dark Heart where the league needs someone who can get really small to deal with the nanotech villains, so they go get Captain Atom. Or episodes like Hawk and Dove where they seriously need someone with frickin peace powers to stop a warbot powered by Ares.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

You're talking about almost every single Justice League Unlimited Episode. So we got episodes like Dark Heart where the league needs someone who can get really small to deal with the nanotech villains, so they go get Captain Atom. Or episodes like Hawk and Dove where they seriously need someone with frickin peace powers to stop a warbot powered by Ares.

In actual comics that center around one superhero or one particular team--which tabletop games more effectively model--you're expected to solve problems your own damn self.

If Green Arrow is confronted by a mystery in his actual comic, he doesn't just outsource the job to Batman. He grabs Speedy and hits the streets to find the real murderer. If the Punisher finds himself assaulted by atomic-powered Russians, he doesn't drop a tip to Captain America or call Nick Fury or even Foolkiller for backup--he hijacks an airplane, follows them back to the island, and fukken drops a nuke on it.

[Username17]

Wow Lago, that is quite the misrepresentation of sample data.

In a comic book about one character, they tend to solve all their problems as if characters from other comic books did not exist. Similarly, the player characters in a table top game are going to try to use their own abilities to solve as many problems as possible.

So fucking what? When other characters are brought in, their unique powers and knowledges are called for in almost every case. That's the entire fucking point of bringing in a crossover character at all.

Basically, all you did was point out that Green Arrow stories tend to be about Green Arrow. That's the equivalent of wetting yourself. If Green Arrow calls in Black Canary for a story, her sonic powers will be used. Guaranteed.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

My solution to the problems of high level is this: don't let players die, and don't adjust monsters for levels. Make it an essential premise of your game that players don't die and that XP is only gained for successful missions, and players have an upfront understanding of how difficult things are to their relative level so they know when they are pushing their luck and when heroic withdrawal is a sound way to preserve their progress toward their XP goals.

Ok, that is the seed of the idea. Comments?

I thought this would be pretty typical to most fantasy games. Typically I accomplish it through through a combination of gentleman's agreement not to pull the curtain back too far and clever GM plotting and writing, more the latter than the former.

Peeling back the onion in stages and allowing things to escalate at roughly the same pace as the character's advancement (sometimes faster, sometimes slower, always roughly equivalent) is, I thought, a hallmark of good DnD GMing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Basically, all you did was point out that Green Arrow stories tend to be about Green Arrow. That's the equivalent of wetting yourself. If Green Arrow calls in Black Canary for a story, her sonic powers will be used. Guaranteed.

Sure, once you bring in a guest character you need to use their abilities or the crossover becomes pointless.

But that's getting the cart before the horse. When comic book writers write something, they bring in Namor and then design a problem around using that character. But from a meta-perspective that's not really how it goes. If Dr. Doom built his base underwater and Namor wasn't around, the adventure would've proceeded normally--Sue Storm would've made a shield bubble, Mr. Fantastic would've built a submarine, etc.. But since Namor was around, why not use him? Yes, when we specifically read the comic it looks like it was a good idea for Mr. Fantastic to tag in Namor for his undersea exploration powers. But he was ultimately unnecessary to the resolution of the adventure; having Namor around was just convenient.

And that's my point. Adventures of 'find this person, use them to win the power' exist, but they always come with the unspoken clause of 'if you don't find this person or MacGuffin or powerset you can still complete it, it just becomes more difficult'.

[violence in the media]

I thought the problem was that when Namor isn't around, the people playing the Fantastic Four are sitting there asking where the fuck he is. Or at least where he was when Dr. Doom was building this giant fucking DOOM-lantis.

Batman not being in Gotham during a Joker rampage is at least as big of a mystery as the actual plot at hand; and all too often the reason he wasn't present is entirely lame, unbelievable, or both.

[shadzar]

Time it takes for shadzar to show up and derail the thread: 1 post. Thanks for failing to address K's idea at all

Try learning to read. I did address it.

I gave comments as to what I would and do do. Then specifically said not letting players die would not be for me, but for some. Yet retards come in and comment on my post rather than the original. So maybe you should point your preteen angst at the one choosing to reply to me instead of the thread itself, named Koumei.

[Orca]

One of the things which grated hardest on me about 4e - and, granted, some 3e D&D games - is the idea that there are no consequences. A night of sleep will cure almost everything, and a days shopping will cure the rest. Up to and including death.

If the characters can't ever die practically speaking, it's a flaw in the game IMO.

[MGuy]

+1 I need characters to be able to die/be hurt. It just feels right. Granted it is a game but I'd like some grit with all the heroism.

[Orion]

Why? Character death is an incredibly unpleasant outcome for everyone involved, ESPECIALLY the GM who has to oversee the replacement character cration and integrate the newb into the game while tying off loose ends dropped by the old PC's death.

It's not like there are no meaningful risks just because you know you won't DIE.

[K]

+1 I need characters to be able to die/be hurt. It just feels right. Granted it is a game but I'd like some grit with all the heroism.

But no one plays a game where characters die. I mean, in all the RPGs I've ever played I'd never seen a player character die a permanent death. Either the DM fudges the rules pretty blatantly or some form of resurrection is brought into play.

That being said, not being able to die does not mean you automatically win the mission. If the big bad runs you through with the Deathsword and pushes you off the castle wall and into the Weeping River, the princess does die and the king will put a bounty on your head for failing instead of a handsome reward. It doesn't matter that the Silent Monks then found you washed up and unconscious somewhere downstream and nursed you back to health because the princess is dead and staying dead.

So basically I want to take something that people already do and basically codify it in the rules rather than making a pile of rules that do the same thing in an indirect way. 4e tried that with padded sumo and healing surges and all that and all it does is bore the crap out of people.

I mean, in just about every game I've played success was an assumption because failure always meant irrevocable player death and the end of the campaign. Even retreat was impossible because running always meant death. Counter-intuitively, removing the threat of death actually makes failure and retreat viable options, thus making any "wins" actually meaningful accomplishments.

[Orion]

I've seen quite a lot of permanent character death actually-- even in games with resurrection, it was often assumed that the soul wasn't willing to come back.

[shadzar]

+1 I need characters to be able to die/be hurt. It just feels right. Granted it is a game but I'd like some grit with all the heroism.

But no one plays a game where characters die. I mean, in all the RPGs I've ever played I'd never seen a player character die a permanent death. Either the DM fudges the rules pretty blatantly or some form of resurrection is brought into play.

Oh yes people do play games where characters die. I have a book of lethal traps my players know about and love to have a chance to be the victim of. They love to try to solve the trap and feel honored to have died by it. Not sure whether it is the Rube Goldberg nature of the traps that brings the dungeon back to life for them or what, but they like seeing what kind of contraption is next.

I also know many others that, while maybe not traps, have absolutely no problem killing character, or having their character killed. Even when very attached to it.

It isn't the same for everyone, and many get frustrated at the thought of death of a character, even temporary. But people do play with death, and permanent death.

It is unfortunate you have never played in a game like that.

Maybe one of the reasons is where the death is located and the nature of the game.

I the previous mentions, the death would occur in a dire place where it would not be that easy to get a rez, or bother carrying around a finger tip to do later. Often a new character created becomes just as much fun and interesting with the different personality in the group and when a rez is available, it is shrugged off.

If the characters cannot die, then how do you explain cohorts dying?

The idea of death is one of my big problems with 4th in that everyone starts as a hero. For me, the heroic characters are the ones that earned it by thwarting death to be able to survive.

How exactly, without death, does anything done have meaning for playing, rather than just being a narrative or tool for a shared storytelling? Where is the "game" without the threat of death?

I've seen quite a lot of permanent character death actually-- even in games with resurrection, it was often assumed that the soul wasn't willing to come back.

Lord Shogo from OOTS does this very well, and becomes a great story element and learning tool for the characters.

[Orion]

For me, the heroic characters are the ones that earned it by thwarting death to be able to survive.

Elenssar II: Electric Boogaloo

Fictional protagonists survive all kinds of things that would kill them in D&D rules.

[shadzar]

I thought the movie was called Breakin' II: Electric Boogaloo?

You going to have to explain the Elenssar thing to me.