"But I like it..."

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Eduardo Penna at 2005-04-01 16:21:25
Converted from Phorums BB System

Although in principle I think I agree with you (character advancement is not strictly necessary), on the other hand it can be very, very fun and enjoyable. It's just like character creation (by far one of the most enjoyable experiences I have when RPing), but much more focused, since you've already seen the character in play and how you want him to grow. So I wouldn't cut character advancement because it's simply too fun to goe without.

Another thing to consider is experience with the system: with ones that offer a lot of character options, like Exalted or D&D, making a "perfect" character can be quite daunting, since the nuances and tricks of both systems are many. Inexperienced characters that advance later circunvent that problem, since you can just learn about new options alongside your character's growth.

Also, in some genres character growth is very, very appropriate. Having a mechanical system governing that is good, although not strictly necessary (you can always go the Castle Falkenstein way and just use a "train X time" rule). For instance, although I love Wushu, the lack of character advancement rules/discussion (in fact, you say that it is completly unecessary) forces me to rely on house rules if I ever want to emulate a HK flick where the characters start as inexperienced monks and learn some super-secret kung-fu style from an magical scroll/old master, and proceed to have a training montage to show the audience their new shtick. Also, I really dig the whole Hero's Journey thing (where increased competency may be a factor), and some games make little sense without it (Star Wars, any game set in Glorantha). Furthermore, some games take character advancement and focuses on it (like Ars Magica).

Resuming: I've no problem with a lack of mechanical character advancement/empowerment in one-shots, but I like them in longer campaigns. A system, per se, isn't really necessary if the dialogue between players and GM is good, though.

Eduardo Penna

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jim Bob at 2005-04-01 23:18:50
Converted from Phorums BB System

Some good points, but I think the authour of the article is a bit overly-focused on the D&D experience. For example, he writes,

"Rather than string your players along with offers of improved stats and new powers, let them decide how their characters grow and change in the context of the game... reputation... admiration... allies... contacts ... uncovering the Truth..."

He's forgetting that many character creation and improvement systems allow the player to improve the character in the very ways you've mentioned. GURPS, for example, lets you spend your XP on getting better skills, or getting stronger - but also on advantages, like reputation, high status (admiration), allies, contacts, and so on. They give game mechanics for the things that in D&D would be pure roleplaying.

That's why I say that he's overly focused on D&D. Among all rpgs, D&D really is unusual in not giving game mechanics for the things you've mentioned. Now, whether those things are best left to pure roleplaying, or given game mechanics for, that's another discussion entirely. But the point is that the mechanical option is there, and isn't news to players.

"A good story can be its own reward."

Indeed. But he's saying this as if it's news. Which is funny, because he spent the rest of the article describing how characters improve their abilities, and in order to improve them, have to slay dragons and so on. He's discounting the possibility that it's not the dragon-slaying that's a good story, or the character improvement, but the combination of the two.

Players enjoy watching the numbers on their character sheet change, whether it's attributes or skills or reputation or GP, because it gives them something relatively tangible to judge their achievements. They get a sense of security from its being on paper, rather than purely roleplayed. This is because there's an unspoken agreement in games that what's written down can't be arbitrarily taken away or altered. What's not written down, can be.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Maarzan at 2005-04-02 03:46:01
Converted from Phorums BB System

I really can´t see what the author is on to.
Having a stagnant character seems to lead to a very one dimensionally and boring game for me.
Unless you have some multicompetent superman you are stuck with one kind of activity - like the mentioned dragon slaying better always the same kind of dragon because you won´t get better to get at the mother of the beast.

For some people character development is not only reward per se but a sign of achivement, even if they don´t do much different than before.
For most it is a chance to tackle different, or at least bigger problems - thus keeping them interested when their old tasks get boring.
Having a better char is not only about more control but also about more options and solveable problems. In other szenari learning the right things is probably part of the problem solving.

If your interest is in character development you probably need a development in skliss too, to fit your new view and obligations.

The peon drafted into army, the jovious noble youth suddently head of a house in trouble or the mighty warrior suddenly elected king and lacking some necessary skills are all doomed if they have to do with what they have up to this point.

I think the article has a very narrow view of the point and what I see is not much that I can follow. Especially because what he puts as good alternatives isn´t diametral with classic character development at all. All that is left is "give me all the power immediatly".

If you have a short oneshot you won´t have much opportunity to gain new skills but if a longer run is intendet I would go so far that development is mandatory.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Daniel Bayn at 2005-04-02 18:37:28
Converted from Phorums BB System

I'm gonna try to reply to these en masse, so I apologize in advance for anything I miss.

First of all, half these points boil down to "It's just fun." I refer you to the first half of the article, where I talk about the source of that fun: character effectiveness. That's what makes advancement rewarding and it's artificial, produced by a Variable Ratio Reinforcement schedule. (It's probably my fault. I have a tendency to under-explain.) Psychologically, creating the character you want right away should be no less rewarding than "earning" it over the course of several weeks or months.

As for advancement as a way to tweak a character during play, why should correcting mistakes made during character creation require _more_ points? It seems like a reasonable GM would let players tweak their stats after the first few sessions, if it'll help improve their game.

Now, the Hero's Journey angle is something I've heard before, and again the problem is "Why does this require points?" If a GM wants to go all Campbellian, it seems like it would make more sense to plot out the stat changes in advance. (ie. "After Hero completes his journey through the underworld, his X and Y stats increase to Z.") I mean, what happens if you get to the milestone and don't have the points necessary for the appropriate stat increases?

Regarding, "... there's an unspoken agreement in games that what's written down can't be arbitrarily taken away or altered. What's not written down, can be." Personally, I don't play with a lot of GMs who would arbitrarily take away something a player worked to earn in-character. Seems like kind of an asshole thing to do, the kind of thing you shouldn't need rules to prevent. Maybe that's just me.

Finally, I want to offer my personal reassurance that you _can_ enjoy a long-term game, _with_ character growth, in the absence of any kind of mechanical character advancement. I've done it many a' time. It's fun on a bun.

L8r, --Dan

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by screenmonkey at 2005-04-02 20:35:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Psychologically, creating the character you want right away should be no less rewarding than "earning" it over the course of several weeks or months. "

Looks good on paper, i'll grant you, but the reality is quite different. In my experience, working your way up to legendary status is far more gratifying than starting there. Just like in real life.

Playing without character advancement is fine, Feng Shui and Big Eyes Small Mouth are both without any significant advancement over the course of a character's career and they're a blast to play, but in doing so you leave out half the rewards.

In other words, you can play with *just* character advancement, but you can also play using both mechanical improvements as well as more non-tangible rewards. The advantage is that in games where characters advance, if the non-tangible stuff is lacking (for whatever reason), the game continues just fine. On the other hand, if a non-advancement game is lacking non-tangible stuff, it's in trouble. It's simply a more difficult campaign to run.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Eduardo Penna at 2005-04-03 01:28:28
Converted from Phorums BB System

"As for advancement as a way to tweak a character during play, why should correcting mistakes made during character creation require _more_ points? It seems like a reasonable GM would let players tweak their stats after the first few sessions, if it'll help improve their game."

Thing is, sometimes you just want to ADD more stuff/shtick/fu to the character, things that didn't occurred to you at character creation but look nifty now and perfect for your character concept. You're assuming a fully fleshed persona after character creation, which I think is not the case: actual play experience can and often does change a character concept.

"Now, the Hero's Journey angle is something I've heard before, and again the problem is "Why does this require points?" If a GM wants to go all Campbellian, it seems like it would make more sense to plot out the stat changes in advance. (ie. "After Hero completes his journey through the underworld, his X and Y stats increase to Z.") I mean, what happens if you get to the milestone and don't have the points necessary for the appropriate stat increases?"

So you're not against character advancement, or more specifically an increasal of a character's effectiveness, just the mechanical aspects? In theory, I think it's great: character advancement derived from a GM-Player discussion/agreement would be the perfect way to go. Thing is, you need a pretty good/open dialog to do so, and, unfortunatly, a lot of groups lack that. So instead of an endless argument between players and GM, you just use the rules and be done with it.

Also, some people like more crunch in their games, or more crunch regarding character advancement, at least. Heck, if you have games detailed rules focusing on combat because combat is important, why not games with rules regarding character advancement due to its importance to the game? Ars Magica is just like that: character advancement has lots of detail associated with it because it's important to the game, more important than combat (which has less detailed/focused rules), but less than magic (which is the main focus of the game), for instance.

Eduardo Penna

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Chris Camfield at 2005-04-03 19:25:23
Converted from Phorums BB System

screenmonkey wrote:
-------------------------------
Playing without character advancement is fine, Feng Shui and Big Eyes Small Mouth are both without any significant advancement over the course of a character's career and they're a blast to play, but in doing so you leave out half the rewards.
-------------------------------

Uh... say what? A Feng Shui character with access to a couple of sites can quickly grow far more powerful than any starting character. In fact the option to increase a primary fighting skill has to be reigned in to prevent too wide a gulf in ability forming.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Chris Camfield at 2005-04-03 19:27:23
Converted from Phorums BB System

"A Feng Shui character with access to a couple of sites can quickly grow far more powerful than any starting character. In fact the option to increase a primary fighting skill has to be reigned in to prevent too wide a gulf in ability forming."

By this I mean that if Bob the Killer buys up his Guns by two points, while Jane the Martial Artist buys Fu schticks, Bob will have a guns of 17 while Jane still has Martial Arts of 14. At this point Bob can probably very easily defeat Jane in a battle, and enemies that are challenging to Bob will be nigh-impossible for Jane to deal with, because a spread of 3 points of skill is very large in Feng Shui.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Matthew Timmins at 2005-04-04 11:04:11
Converted from Phorums BB System

I enjoyed the article but I wish to make a couple of points:

1) I find it a little irritating to be told that my enjoyment of a part of the game is *merely* a conditional response. This kind of psycological dissection would lead to abandoning gaming all together as *merely* a power-fantasy with no inherent value (as opposed to the aforementioned eating or sex) "...we like the feeling of control because it allows us to obtain rewards and avoid punishments. It's as simple as that." If it was as simple as that, why play at all? Why not just eat, have sex, and avoid pain?

2) Advancement is a fun part of storytelling. Many (probably most) fictional character grow. Consider Luke in the Star Wars movies, or better yet, Bilbo in the Hobbit. If he had started out as a "12th level rouge" it would have been a much poorer novel. "Psychologically, creating the character you want right away should be no less rewarding than "earning" it over the course of several weeks or months." Weel, maybe it *shouldn't* be but it often *is*. I've played characters that started at "1st level" and struggled to reach advance and many will agree that the sense of pride and accomplishment is really enjoyable, even if "it's artificial, produced by a Variable Ratio Reinforcement schedule".

3) For many of us system of any kind is a necessary evil. Idealy it would be all story and we would have no need of system, characters would advance naturally and seamlessly, and combat would flow in a organic, choatic way. But in the reality of the table system in needed to keep track of things (mostly because the GM is not an omnipotent, all-knowing thespian with no other demands on the time then the Game). XPs are a convient way to keep track of how a PC is doing.

4) "...what happens if you get to the milestone and don't have the points necessary for the appropriate stat increases?" Good point. System shuold not rule the game (fudge the needed XP is need be) but neither should it be discarded. Any system needs to be interperted and tweaked to fit the needs of a particular group.

5) Finally, I don't think character effectiveness is the only reason to play. It can be fun to lose, to be INeffective.

It was an interesting article and well written, and psychology can certainly inform and improve our games but it should not cloud the fact that these *games* that we are playing. Remember: dissection kills the frog.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Daniel Bayn at 2005-04-05 13:57:06
Converted from Phorums BB System

Matthew - There's nothing "mere" about it, so don't be irritated. I'm not arguing that _only_ unconditioned rewards are inherently valuable. I'm arguing that imposing a token economy on an activity that is already rewarding can reduce the reward value of that activity. That's the Overjustification Effect I discussed at length in the article. If you're interested in avoided it, you should dispense with mechanical systems of advancement (as per the last 2 paragraphs of the article.)

To respond to your final point in particular, I agree that ineffective characters can be a joy to play. However, I'd argue that players need to be able to _choose_ when this occurs in order to have fun with it. The ability to choose when to fail is a matter of "character effectiveness" because it's a matter of control over the game.

L8r, --Dan

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Matthew Timmins at 2005-04-06 08:16:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

"To respond to your final point in particular, I agree that ineffective characters can be a joy to play. However, I'd argue that players need to be able to _choose_ when this occurs in order to have fun with it. The ability to choose when to fail is a matter of "character effectiveness" because it's a matter of control over the game."

Fair enough. I concur.

Thanks for an interesting topic. Game on.

--Matt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by flyingmice at 2005-04-07 06:32:47
Converted from Phorums BB System

Dan:

I did a lot of thinking about this while designing the StarCluster system. Giving experience points for specific actions encourages those actions, whether or not those actions suit the circumstance, because XP are a meta-game device. The player, in essence, causes the character to perform an action which may be counter-productive in the current circumstances because in the long run the character is rewarded for those actions. This can lead to farcial and unreasonable behavior on the part of the character.

I tried (in playtest) not having any advancement at all - I played Classic Traveller back in the day, and knew this worked, but while everyone liked the concept of creating the character they wanted to play directly in chargen, most of the players baulked at the no-advancement concept. They wanted some tangible reward, and liked to see themselves progress.

I tried tying advancement to skill use, a la BRP, but this produced illogical and contrived results, with characters 'using' as many skills as possible purely to advance as many skills as possible.

I tried tying advancement to success in purely social situations, and that produced characters who optimised social skills at the expense of survival skills.

I tried awarding XPs for showing up. This was better, as the only behavior pattern it was reinforcing was on the part of the player, not the character, but again players objected, saying they wanted character advancement tied to the character's action. They felt a direct award to the player wasn't satisfying.

Finally I tied advancement to long-term character survival, and this worked. It gave me the results I wanted: character actions were appropriate to the situation and were not governed by meta-game thinking. I was afraid, frankly, that this route would lead to character cowardice, but that never happened, because that worked directly against the way most of the players saw their characters. It did tend to instill a healthy caution, but never cowardice, unless the character concept was cowardly in the first place, and never inaction.

This also allowed a lot of other cool things, but that's another story.

-clash

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Dan at 2005-04-07 23:45:39
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Psychologically, creating the character you want right away should be no less rewarding than "earning" it over the course of several weeks or months. "

But you've just explained to us why "earning" it IS more rewarding.
Just because you can explain why it's enjoyable doesn't make it any less enjoyable.

To draw a parallel, most (or all) forms of entertainment are based around a cycle of tension and release, music, movies, novels etc. e.g. put the characters in danger (tension) have them survive the danger (release), guy falls in love with a girl (tension) guy gets to go out with girl (release). Having realised this, writers exploit it to wring out as much tension as possible before resolving the situation, thus making the "relief" part more satisfying.

One would think that recognising the psychological reasons behind the enjoyment of accruing experience and gaining in ability would empower the GM to allow him to make character advancement even more enjoyable rather than causing him to discard it all together.



Also I have to disagree with the point about character failure i.e. it's fun to fail but only when you choose to. That's not failure.

It sounds like you like games which coddle the players, letting them get their own way all the time. The real fun of roleplaying, for me, is that you get to be inside the story and sometimes that means that certain things will be beyond your control as a player (as they are beyond the character's control). If players get total control, including if and when they fail, then that's not roleplaying, that's collaborative storytelling, a related but distinct activity.