PDA

View Full Version : reasons for gradual progression


RPGnet Columns
04-04-2005, 09:05 PM
Post originally by nihtgenga at 2005-04-04 20:05:15
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hi there,

while I'll happily agree that 'leveling' and the like are not necessary for a good game, I have to disagree that it is done only for its own sake. To use your idea of emulating the genre you want to play in, pick 2 popular fantasy series:

The Belgariad: Young kid off farm develops over time into King and eventually into godslayer. Which is more fun: playing the kid or playing Godslayer? After all, just how many challenges are there floating around when you are that powerful?

Even worse example is Magician. Young ophan, useless at magic, becomes most powerful magician in two worlds. Later becomes almost god. So powerful that author can't convincing get him to do anything. Perfect example of how to make a character extremely boring.

Note that the challenges for a low level character is dramatically different to those for a high level character, and that gradual progression allows the full variety to be presented. I usually design campaigns so that the characters retire when they reach the ultimate level, not because they can't progress any further, but because the range of interesting things they can do diminish in proportion to their strength.

Then again, I'm biased. I hate sequels just because the audience wants to see the further adventures of... Lots of good series have been ruined that way (The Mallorian comes to mind, but so many of my friends loved it, so what would I know?) Give me a begining, middle and end any day.

Cheers

RPGnet Columns
04-05-2005, 12:47 AM
Post originally by Tracy at 2005-04-04 23:47:38
Converted from Phorums BB System

Neither is very fun to play. Struggling as a kid to stay alive,especially in a combat system is more frustrating than fun. Likewise being an invincible overlord isn't challenging enough and loses all suspension of disbelief.

Why not start off somewhere inbetween and keep it there?

RPGnet Columns
04-06-2005, 10:18 AM
Post originally by Tim Gray at 2005-04-06 09:18:35
Converted from Phorums BB System

Aside: The Shadow of Yesterday has it that when you take the highest level of a skill it becomes possible to get a die roll result which means Transcendence: you succeed in that task spectacularly well and your adventuring career comes to an end immediately afterwards (in whatever way).

RPGnet Columns
04-08-2005, 12:09 AM
Post originally by Dan at 2005-04-07 23:09:17
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Why not start off somewhere inbetween and keep it there?"

Umm, wasn't the whole point of the story that this kid ends up being king. Take away the character's progression and you are taking away the reason for the story in the first place.

Another reason for making people to work for their experience is that if you let people design any character you will end up with 4 people wanting to be the mightiest warrior in the kingdom. How would you deal with that? Are they all equally mighty?

Advancement addiction is definitely real (witness the success of computer "RPG"s which offer little else besides the opportunity to level up) but I think the gradual progression is more of a GM tool to keep PC power getting out of hand. You can have a powerful character but you have to build up to it gradually to make sure it doesn't ruin the game world.

RPGnet Columns
04-15-2005, 08:49 PM
Post originally by No2 at 2005-04-15 19:49:41
Converted from Phorums BB System

Cognitive behavioural reinforcement is another good reason for gradual progression based on motivation studies in psychology.

Adventure = get new exponential crunchy bits.