The Campaign Builder's Guild

This is a mini-meta thread about something that came up in chat today (thanks Llum and isomage).

What are your feelings about game mechanics that only give you the chance for character advancement, as opposed to a certainty of it?

Let me explain.  In D&D, or any system with experience points, rewards are always constant.  The distance between levels may chance, requiring more XP, but any amount of XP inevitably leads you closer to that next level.  Advancement is a certainty.

But hit points in D&D (at least, in 3rd ed) don't work like that.  You roll for new hit points each level, and you accept what you get.  The hope is that over time you'll get something like the average or better, but you never know - you could get a string of terrible rolls.  The amount of your reward is uncertain.

The Riddle of Steel had an uncertain method of skill advancement (until the TRoS Companion came out and the designers changed it).  Every time you used a skill in a challenging environment, you got a "check mark" next to the skill.  When you had three check marks, you rolled a Mental Aptitude check against a target number that got higher and higher with each skill level.  If you succeeded in the check, you advanced a skill level; if you failed, you erased your three check marks and started over.

Seems a bit harsh, but is it that different from hit point advancement in D&D?  I mean, over time, you should approach an average, and your average skill advancement will start to slow down at higher levels just like a XP system with bigger and bigger XP requirements per level.  What do you feel about uncertain awards like this?  Do you prefer that character advancement should be straightforward, with no chance involved?  Tell me about your opinions on the matter.

Quote from: Polycarp[...] What do you feel about uncertain awards like this?  Do you prefer that character advancement should be straightforward, with no chance involved?  Tell me about your opinions on the matter.

There's this saying... "any element of randomness favors the underdog - which are usually the monsters and not the PCs". And I think that this saying applies here, too.

A barbarian that rolls a "1" for hit points for four levels in a row may become so weak that instead of an addition to the part he becomes a liability. Not only would this likely diminish the enjoyment of the barbarian's player, but it could also negatively affect the enjoyment of other players (e.g. the cleric that needs to keep a special eye on the barbarian during the whole combat and thus is severely limited in his own freedom of actions).

Imho players are subject to enough randomness from the combat/skill rules and there is no need to further enforce even more randomness the players can't control. After all, your suggestion would be roughly equal to roll for skillpoints in DnD as we roll for hitpoints - something which probably no player would willingly accept.

It is true that even with uncertain advancement mechanics the advancement rate should still approach a certain average, but the chances are that a streak of bad dice luck can overly frustrate a player and make him not want to play the character any longer. This is especially true if the below-average (or "missed" or "lost") advancement cannot be compensated for by above-average advancement later on. In DnD you can always roll maximum hitpoints whenever you gain a level, just as you can roll a 1 for hitpoints, so eventually you can perhaps compensate the four "1"s you rolled earlier.

The old TBE system was an imho very bad specimen of an uncertain advancement mechanic. The basics were like this: the system is based on levels, and at each level you gained a certain number of marks you could place on your skills. For each mark, you could make a roll - if the roll of your dice was higher than your skill rank you gained another rank. The problem was: if you failed that roll, that single chance of advancement was gone for good - and that meant that a series of bad dice rolls would leave the character permanently weaker than he should be.

Actually, in TRoS you only erase two of the three checks if you fail.

And that's one aspect of the system I wasn't too fond of, though I did like how using skills improved them.

AH, RA>>>
so glad you are back to disagree with, though this is on my HP mini...harder to type...
GS uses a skill system where we keep exp in every skill.  Higher attribs mean a better exp modifier, so you get experience faster when your attributes say you should be better at something.

And we discovered that placing a skill in a place by itself is not as realistic in terms of advancement.  Characters gain levels in base skills before they are allowed to learn advanced skills...but levels in th base skills trickle down to the more advanced ones...

But to the first point, every level gain in GS is a random amount, like Phoenix' HP comparison, but base skills get 1-4 or 2-5 per level, and the more advanced down a tree they go, they gain more per level.

More later, good topic.

Quote from: LordVreegBut to the first point, every level gain in GS is a random amount, like Phoenix' HP comparison, but base skills get 1-4 or 2-5 per level, and the more advanced down a tree they go, they gain more per level.

While his point still stands. If your tank character has level 4 HP (lets say he has a great modifier and puts a lot of starting XP into it) and rolls 1 4 times, thats hypothetically 7 hit points. No matter how much armor he has, he's going to be a horrible tank. My GS character has taken maybe 4 hits in the game, I've taken 20+ damage. That's an average of 5+ damage per hit! After armor!

Now GS itself is built to fix this, since HP is 2-5, so you get atleast 2 HP per level. So in our example this guy would have 11 HP.

Now the odds of this happening aren't really that good (well, unless your using isobot). But the point still stands, trying to play a "barbarian" or "tank" character in GS and consistently rolling minimum HP will get really old really fast. If your character even survived for very long.

As for the enjoyment of it, I guess that really comes down to the player. At best I can see it being trying always rolling crap HP but playing along with it. At worst your character is going to die, sooner rather than later, wich is always that fun.

Llum, no argument here.  Rolling a '1' sucks.  And that is to PC's point, is this a good or bad thing...
And I will remind all that there is another side to the coin, the character who rolls better than average, that 4th lvl HP guy with 23 HP.  Or 4th lvl spirit, with 29 Spell points.

Character creation is a wierd thing.  But I've watched my players do it for 33 years now, and there is something manatic about chance and uncertainty....

Llum, to speak to this, and the 'fun' of the random results in GS (attribs, race, social, etc)...how many characters have you rolled up?

Quote from: LordVreegAnd I will remind all that there is another side to the coin, the character who rolls better than average, that 4th lvl HP guy with 23 HP.  Or 4th lvl spirit, with 29 Spell points.

what... why is everyone looking at me like that?

I think in many ways that balance is a bad concept; there is nothing wrong with being either objectively better or worse than your party members as long as you have a niche to fill. A fighter still have a job to do even if another member can call up fire at will. (this is a general RP observation, not  a D&D-specific observation since that game is clearly built around the concept of balance).
That being said, I'm not a fan of uncertain advancement. It's a bit taunting to the poor players, when all their hard-earned experience goes up in smoke. Of course, in the tRoS case there was potential for some fast advancement.  
But still, I think I'd prefer what they came up with afterwards; something I will call non-linear advancement.
Basically, D&D more or less demands that you should go up a level every time you have passed 14 encounters or so. tRoS (and other games) on the other hand hand out advancement after certain events have taken place or certain goals (be they player or campaign goals) have been achieved; whether this takes 1 session or 10.
With D&D advancement becomes too much of a certainty; a regular thing you can depend on. With some irregularity, it will be more like an actual award. I'd perhaps also prefer a system which had smaller steps of advancement.  

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: LordVreegAnd I will remind all that there is another side to the coin, the character who rolls better than average, that 4th lvl HP guy with 23 HP.  Or 4th lvl spirit, with 29 Spell points.

what... why is everyone looking at me like that?

OK, I laughed.

I think one of the mechanisms that helps bridge this in GS was just mentioned by CC, that of small incremental growth.  If GS were like D&D where you wait 3 sessions to go up a level, and then get to roll once for hp, then it sucks rocks if you roll poorly.

We set up GS to the character is constantly breaking little levels.  Yes, you roll for hp, but we don't penalize the fighters, since you roll for spell point gain per level, for social ability gain per level, for basic outdoor gain per level, for basic trap per level...we don't just pick on the fighters.

Also, the longer a character is around, the more skills they pick up, along with subskills and dropdowns.  An average player breaks level in 1-2 skills per session.  Sometimes less, sometimes more.  When a character gets hit, they get exp in HP (ask LLum), when they cast a spell they get exp in the spell sources they use, when they pick a lock or defend damage, that's what they gain exp in.

Well, I think a big factor in this discussion is whether a campaign is based on "role playing" or "war playing."

If a campaign is very focused on roleplaying, and the DM/GM is ok with fudging some rules and roles, than a poor dice roll can be pretty fun to play. A fighter with low hit points would be a fun, albeit challenging, character to play. Some hacking cough, childhood illness, etc. could all be justifications for this which a good player could use accordingly. He would just have to fight with a little more intelligence and panache than he normally would.

That all said, if stats, crunching, and hex-grids are the name of the game (war playing) than poor numbers can suck, when the only way they can express themselves is an a character that can't go toe-to-toe with an otter. or whatever.

Quote from: LeetzWell, I think a big factor in this discussion is whether a campaign is based on "role playing" or "war playing."

If a campaign is very focused on roleplaying, and the DM/GM is ok with fudging some rules and roles, than a poor dice roll can be pretty fun to play. A fighter with low hit points would be a fun, albeit challenging, character to play. Some hacking cough, childhood illness, etc. could all be justifications for this which a good player could use accordingly. He would just have to fight with a little more intelligence and panache than he normally would.

That all said, if stats, crunching, and hex-grids are the name of the game (war playing) than poor numbers can suck, when the only way they can express themselves is an a character that can't go toe-to-toe with an otter. or whatever.

Agreed. Roleplay can let a player get around their players weaknesses because 50% of the game at least is outside the stats. Wargaming though where everyone lives and dies by their stats would make this suck. That is likely why most wargaming systems use either pre-defined stats or point buy systems.

The other side of this equation, is, of course, the amount and methods of passing and parceling out experience.
I am enjoying passing out experience based on roleplaying.

I like randomness, in general.

Even if, as Ra-Tiel says, it tends to favour the underdog, isn't that cool? Even in the example of the Barbarian with low HP, don't you think it would make it more fun to play that Barbarian? To have all that destructive Rage power, but be so vulnerable? I dunno, maybe that's just me...

Serious thread necromancy, LV.

I dislike additional randomness in games. There is randomness enough built into a dice-based system. A few bad rolls, especially in more realistic games, can cost you a character.

Some of people have unlimited time for gaming so we can afford to expand ourselves by being forced to play characters of types and natures other than what we want to play. Some of us do not have that luxury--if I'm able to play D&D two or three times a year, and I spent that time preparing to play a crafty rogue, imagining my backstory and personality...I don't want dice to tell me, no your Int is only 9 and by the way, you rolled a half-orc, enjoy! (I can't say I've ever really loved a non-human character I've played in any game.)

Quote from: PhoenixSerious thread necromancy, LV.

I dislike additional randomness in games. There is randomness enough built into a dice-based system. A few bad rolls, especially in more realistic games, can cost you a character.

Some of people have unlimited time for gaming so we can afford to expand ourselves by being forced to play characters of types and natures other than what we want to play. Some of us do not have that luxury--if I'm able to play D&D two or three times a year, and I spent that time preparing to play a crafty rogue, imagining my backstory and personality...I don't want dice to tell me, no your Int is only 9 and by the way, you rolled a half-orc, enjoy! (I can't say I've ever really loved a non-human character I've played in any game.)

That's a whole different kettle of fish.  You were going into point buy vs random creation and character creation in general.  Which is important, but kind of of the subject of how and if characters advance.  I like having enough chances to roll that eventually things start to even out.  D&D was mentioned as a hybrid; and since you only rolled for a few things like HP, when you made a few bad rolls, it kind of sucked.

Character creation is tough.  I rarely see players determine the backstory and ideal before they see the dice, almost never.  Still, I understand the sentiment in terms of waiting to play and stating a nrew group for the first time in ages, and the rolls give you a boring, generic, underwhelming character.  I will be honest and let all and sundry know that especially in character creation; I want the players to be thrilled with what they are playing.  I want them to look up the rules that allow them to exploit the skills they have chosen.  It's no good if the players are unhappy with what they are playing.