They can level in a few minutes, because they've done the work ahead of time.True; that's one of my main concern with Pathfinder, although it is better than it was by the end of 3.5.
Selecting feats can go fast once you know every feat by heart.
If you have to read through the whole catalogue every time, leveling-up can take a long time, or you find out that you can do "X" because you should have taken feat "Y" 3 levels ago.
I still don't get this.
No you don't have to know every feat by heart, but when you decide to try playing Pathfinder, I expect you to read the relevant part of the book, as opposed to me listing and explaining every ability and rule as it comes up.
Do people in other games just go with whatever the first feat they read is and not even bother looking at their other options, or what that feat unlocks down the road? Do people at other tables never pick up and browse through the book (or PRD) after that first time looking at it, even though they have weeks of time in between level ups?
I'm not buying this statement.
I would play a game with no Experience point system, as long as it had some sort of advancement system, so the character could improve over time, and be able to learn new things.
I tend to play in games that measure years or decades. I like to start competent and end up powerful. Was in a supers game where we started the Teen Titans and ended up the Justice Leauge.
However if there is no advancement mechanic in play, I would skip the game.
They can level in a few minutes, because they've done the work ahead of time.True; that's one of my main concern with Pathfinder, although it is better than it was by the end of 3.5.
Selecting feats can go fast once you know every feat by heart.
If you have to read through the whole catalogue every time, leveling-up can take a long time, or you find out that you can do "X" because you should have taken feat "Y" 3 levels ago.
I still don't get this.
No you don't have to know every feat by heart, but when you decide to try playing Pathfinder, I expect you to read the relevant part of the book, as opposed to me listing and explaining every ability and rule as it comes up.
Do people in other games just go with whatever the first feat they read is and not even bother looking at their other options, or what that feat unlocks down the road? Do people at other tables never pick up and browse through the book (or PRD) after that first time looking at it, even though they have weeks of time in between level ups?
I'm not buying this statement.
Many games don't have feats.:)
Many are far less dependent on prerequisites for those abilities they do have. Often very little concept of one choice unlocking others down the road. In fact, that particular style of character generation is very much a 3.x thing. And games derived from/influenced by it.
Consider BRP mentioned above, where you have skills and they get better through use. Consider Hero or GURPS, which are point based systems. You put more points into an ability to make it stronger instead of buying another ability that has it (and maybe something else) as a prerequisite. Consider White Wolf's games where you generally pick power from a couple of paths. You have to work up the path in order, but you won't find that the top ability depends on something outside the path.
Or even consider earlier D&D editions. In Basic or 1st & 2nd edition...
We have to agree to disagree. Frankly I still don't consider reading the feat lists time consuming or anything like work but YMMV.
Since the most often used feats were ported directly from 3.5, I guess technically I've been working with mostly the same set of abilities for like 6 years so... yeah.
(...) but when you decide to try playing Pathfinder, I expect you to read the relevant part of the book, as opposed to me listing and explaining every ability and rule as it comes up.
Which is quite allright. I think you can legitimately expect people to know the game and learn to navigate through the tools given in the book for character creation.
What I mean is that you cannot both say "do your reading, learn your parts" and "leveling up takes a few minutes".
Leveling-up takes minutes once your spent (initially) hours reading classes, spells, feats, archetypes etc, and periodically go back to those descriptions.
I'm only backing-up what the jeff said about your players taking a few minutes to level-up:
They can level in a few minutes, because they've done the work ahead of time.
The fact that you can do much of your work in advance doesn't take away from the total time it takes for a character to level-up.
btw, saying that leveling-up a character requires a lot of work doesn't mean it is chore, or that isn't fun. Much of the appeal of 3.5/Pathfinder is in the selection of class/feat/abilities, looking for combos, mastering the game to get "optimised" selections etc, because the game has so much to offer in this department.
As for other games, most (that are not 3rd edition spawns that is) give lots of options at character creations, but much less as advancements (or level-up). The concept that a character is built-up like a deck of M:tG cards is very WotC's d20 system.
(...) but when you decide to try playing Pathfinder, I expect you to read the relevant part of the book, as opposed to me listing and explaining every ability and rule as it comes up.Which is quite allright. I think you can legitimately expect people to know the game and learn to navigate through the tools given in the book for character creation.
What I mean is that you cannot both say "do your reading, learn your parts" and "leveling up takes a few minutes".
Leveling-up takes minutes once your spent (initially) hours reading classes, spells, feats, archetypes etc, and periodically go back to those descriptions.
I'm only backing-up what the jeff said about your players taking a few minutes to level-up:
They can level in a few minutes, because they've done the work ahead of time.The fact that you can do much of your work in advance doesn't take away from the total time it takes for a character to level-up.
btw, saying that leveling-up a character requires a lot of work doesn't mean it is chore, or that isn't fun. Much of the appeal of 3.5/Pathfinder is in the selection of class/feat/abilities, looking for combos, mastering the game to get "optimised" selections etc, because the game has so much to offer in this department.
As for other games, most (that are not 3rd edition spawns that is) give lots of options at character creations, but much less as advancements (or level-up). The concept that a character is built-up like a deck of M:tG cards is very WotC's d20 system.
Actually, it sorta does. If you are just looking at the books in fits and starts, bits and pieces, five minutes at a time here or there, and occasionally idly flipping through while the total time spent might even be more ... It's not as much work. Or doesn't feel like it. Not the same as one big chunk of time investment.
This is a generalization taken from experience (see what I did there?), but games with no advancement system tend to be aimed at one-shot sessions or at most very short adventures. So I think it's a good thing to consider when developing such a game.
Not that there is anything wrong with it. There are some truly fantastic games that work best in short bursts, like Spirit of the Century and the more esoteric Polaris, both of which have no structured advancement system like what we see in D&D and Pathfinder.
As for the question, yes, I would, and do, buy games without an EXP or similar progression mechanic. Games with those systems tend to be the ones I play the most (probably because I prefer to play long campaigns), but I definitely enjoy short games every now and then (plus they are great when it comes to getting one of my players to DM for a change).
Yes.
I can and do buy RPGs without an experience point mechanic, and I would even play one without an advancement mechanic at all!
Would I buy Pathfinder without levels-based advancement? Probably not.
We can only remove so much of the nostalgia-laden cruft from Pathfinder before it becomes more logical for me to just play another game. I play Pathfinder for all these old cruft concepts. I can never understand people who come to Pathfinder expecting a modern RPG experience out of what is clearly a retro RPG.
We can only remove so much of the nostalgia-laden cruft from Pathfinder before it becomes more logical for me to just play another game. I play Pathfinder for all these old cruft concepts. I can never understand people who come to Pathfinder expecting a modern RPG experience out of what is clearly a retro RPG.
But is it really retro when it's still in vogue?
It's quite an odd question this, it kind of relates to "Would you buy a game without levels"? Almost.
Lets look at what possible definitions and meanings lie behind experience mechanic...
Giving a level on attendance IS a form of experience mechanic
Gaining Build Points IS an experience mechanic
Giving points to hit a level threshold IS an obvious and often used mechanic (because it solves so many in game problems for balance and encounter design for example)
In short, any form of "empowerment" through play, skill increases, level increases, more attacks, better defense and so on is a form of experience mechanic.
So what do we mean by experience mechanic? Going to grass roots, an experience mechanic is a game mechanism that is meant to reflect a growth in skills, knowledge, power, etc over time as a result of learning from the "life experiences" the PC encounters along the way. As soon as you incorporate this "leveling up" idea in a game, you have some sort of experience mechanic.
In this case, I wonder if what you are really asking is the type of experience mechanic preferred - some have mentioned regular small amounts of build points or skill points awarded each session - this works up to a point, but then for game balance you need to introduce limits of points per skill and maybe for a given entity in the game. The other end of this extreme is the earn points to breach a leveling threshold when you trigger a set gain - the traditional experience mechanic.
That being said, if a game was invented that had no level ups, skill building points or any sort of gain over time mechanism, yet provided interesting, varied challenges and role play opportunity session after session and was fun and interesting game after game - too darn right I would buy it.
Whatever mechanisms a game employs or doesn't, so long as the FUN, replay ability, and social elements are long lasting, it will always find room on my shelf.
But is it really retro when it's still in vogue?
Sure it can! After all, the whole 3e-3.5-PF genre is a backlash to the backlash of the RPGs from the mid-late 90s which came as a direct outgrowth of "progress" away from these kinds of systems (levels, exp, etc). Of course, a good number of people were playing D&D the whole time, but as far as the evolution of parallel rulesets is concerned, all the newcomers were looking to make it more sophisticated, realistic, or atmospheric than D&D.
At least that's how I remember it. Then all of a sudden in the early oughts, 3e dropped and everyone was like: "Oh yeah, levels and armor class!"
The persevering mystery to me is: why would you ever willingly play one when you wanted the other? I know ToZ likes to come along and say "because more people play the one you don't like, and you can't find a group that wants to play a simulationist or RP-centric game..."
And he's right. So YET AGAIN the problem turns out to be poor communication/consensus within the group.
Woops, posting after coffee again. What were we talking about?
And he's right.
Wait, what?
And he's right.Wait, what?
I know, it shocked me too.
I know, it shocked me too.And he's right.Wait, what?
[tread derail] and what's up with those MYTHIC prefixes that pop'd out about a month ago?[/derail]
Once you go mythic...something something.
Once you go mythic...something something.
You take off your hood and reveal long flowing locks of hair?
Worked for Kyra!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[tread derail] and what's up with those MYTHIC prefixes that pop'd out about a month ago?[/derail]
I would tell you, but I only answer such questions from forum members of mythic tier 1st or higher.
[tread derail] and what's up with those MYTHIC prefixes that pop'd out about a month ago?[/derail]I would tell you, but I only answer such questions from forum members of mythic tier 1st or higher.
I see; it's a quest then...
For the OP. I have several RPGs with no Exp system. They tend to have a high mortality rate (Traveller), a character ending problem (SAN) or some other reason that the character won't be around too long. Another alternative is that you're playing the "end game" character and he's as good as it gets. I've also played games with fairly limited options for advancement whether skill or level based (i.e. Bushido). It's a different way to play than the standard D&D type system. It removes / limits the players satisfaction in character growth and focuses on other reasons for playing. I've played dozens of RPGs over the years. The majority of my time with one edition or the other of D&D (including Pathfinder) and Traveller.
I would GM, but not PC an RPG without an advancement mechanic of some kind.
I know you're suggesting some kind of system where you gain levels arbitrarily or whatever without tracking XP, and that's fine, I do the same thing when I run games. But, in the end, I'd rather take out levels altogether and allow more freeform character advancement.
My favorite advancement system is in Savage Worlds, whereby you accumulate XP and every X amount you "advance" and get to do one of several equally valued things (raise an attribute, raise 2 skills, gain an edge which is something like a feat, or remove a hindrance, etc.).
My second favorite advancement system is when you get a pool of XP and spend it to raise things directly (as seen in, well, a huge number of RPGs including WoD (both old and new), L5R, Shadowrun, etc.). So, raising your Strength costs X amount of XP, while gaining some new special ability costs Y, etc.
Gaining levels would probably be my least favorite advancement system if it weren't for all those use-based advancement systems out there that encourage bizarre activity. "Why are you on a horse, sauntering up to the enemy guard and trying to seduce him again? He's going to throw you in prison." "Because, if I want optimal skill growth, I need to use my Ride, Diplomacy, Mounted Combat, and Escape Artist skills before the end of the session!"