Hello all,
After seeing/participating in some recent threads, I'm curious how people envision leveling up.
A first level character in most class-based systems has one class. To me that class represents the culmination of what the character has learned up until that point.
When a character levels up, their existing skills/abilities improve.
In the situation where a player plans to multiclass, their first level character is pursuing another skill set for a significant amount of time before they level up.
In that situation, leveling up represents achieving some competency with the second skill set.
This of course can be problematic when a first level wizard may have spent decades studying magic to become a first level wizard, whereas a character that did not study magic can multiclass into wizard at level two.
I believe these kind of situations are best handled by the GM working with the player ahead of time to try to keep the versilimitude of the campaign world in tact.
How do you view leveling up?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I view leveling up as meaning whatever the particular game I'm talking about tells me it means. It's not like there's some kind of self-existent truth of what leveling is, and the thousands of different level-based games are all offering interpretations of that central truth. Thus, the very definition of leveling will be different for each game.
For instance, in Pathfinder, leveling up comes from XP, which in turn comes from overcoming certain types of challenges (ones with a Challenge Rating) and not from anything else. Well, except first level, which requires no XP at all. Therefore, no matter how much studying or whatever else you do, you don't level up unless you face enough risky challenges. A decade of study can get you that first level of wizard, but another decade of study will never get you to second level (whether of the same class or not).
But in other games, leveling up could mean something VERY different. *cough*Undertale*cough*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To counter that slightly...
We can open our hymnals to page 399,Awarding Experience.
Pure roleplaying encounters generally have a CR equal to the average level of the party (although particularly easy or difficult roleplaying encounters might be one higher or lower).
Now, what exactly constitutes a "pure roleplaying encounter" is subject to GM/group determination, but the system as written includes non-combat awards for advancement.
The "discrepancy" between taking a level of Wizard first and second is one of the reasons I pay little attention to such things and recognize that the game is poorly structured for such aspects of a story. If something like this is very important to your verisimilitude, I would recommend playing a system where you can't (or very rarely can) take a second class to avoid such problems.
I see people spend a lot of time being contortionists trying to make the story and game rules fit with each other. You can ease your burden by using a system that supports the kind of story you actually want to tell.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To counter that slightly...
...the system as written includes non-combat awards for advancement.
certain types of challenges (ones with a Challenge Rating)
I didn't say anything about combat, I said challenges with a CR. That seems to align perfectly with your citation. :)
More to the point, I think my jaw would hit the floor if I encountered a group where the "decades spent studying magic" that the OP ascribes to reaching 1st level was treated as an "encounter" with its own CR and would result in an XP award.
Therefore, gaining a level (beyond 1st) means that you've faced challenges with CRs, and your advancement comes from that, not from the same long-term but less challenging activities that might account for your first level. Which was my original point.
Of course, there's a certain amount of weirdness to this (especially for classes that give you free gear when you pick up a level in them), which then goes back to your point about contortionism, which is one piece of why I'm not really into Pathfinder anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you view leveling up?
Are you asking "in general"? Or in Pathfinder specifically?
Like most d20-based games, leveling is simply part of the game mechanics. It's not meant to simulate real life, and so doesn't have to make sense in those terms.
Different systems progress you differently, some better at being more "realistic" than others.
Basically, leveling up means: "I've gotten better at what I do! I can cast more spells, and/or more powerful spells. I can hit more accurately. I'm better at using [X] skill(s) than I was before." Whether or not the mechanics of that satisfy your desire for verisimilitude is completely up to you.
Are you asking "in general"? Or in Pathfinder specifically?
More in general, I guess. I've played a handful of editions of D&D as well as Pathfinder. I've also played numerous other games that have leveling up as a feature.
In all of those situations, I've viewed leveling up as essentially the same process.
So, I'm not so interested in the specific mechanics of leveling up, but what leveling up means in the game world.
It sounds like, based on what Irontruth said above, that some people think it's better to ignore how leveling up affects the game world or the story.
That's valuable input - curious if a lot of people view It in that way, or perhaps a different way. Then, how people reconcile how they view leveling up with the game world/story.
Nothing, absolutely nothing!
Sorry, still salty about how pointless going from Sorcerer 1 to Sorcerer 2 is.
But really, I just sweep it under the rug of willing suspension of disbelief, and just don't compare a multiclassed level with what somebody's character looked like a few levels ago.
|
|
I view leveling as a character increasing the abilities and bonuses available to him, to give him a wider/better ability to influence the story and world. His abilities are not solely defined by his stats, as these are only the most commonly tested attributes. So it's a snapshot, not an extensive picture of his capability. This means that I don't sweat a character multiclassing as those abilities have been there in some fashion, just not enough to have an effect on his performance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you view leveling up?
From an in-game perspective, I view leveling up as nothing at all significant. It's just the game mechanical abstraction of a character's continual improvement administered in discrete chunks for convenience and easy of use.
And if a PC picks up a new class, I prefer it if a player telegraphs their intention so it's easier to meld it into the story of the character's development.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do try to inject some RP or lead-in to most things, like if a PC wants to pick up a new language then I might mention that in her downtime she bugs someone to teach it to her or she studies up on it, things like that. Dreams are usually a good way to herald the arrival of new class abilities like a shaman gaining access to a wandering spirit or a witch gaining a new hex, but there are lots of options if you want to explain leveling up in a way that makes some sort of sense in the game world. However, several of the above posters have a point regarding multiclassing and the like, so there does have to be a point where you have to be willing to just shrug and roll with it even when it doesn't seem very plausible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like, based on what Irontruth said above, that some people think it's better to ignore how leveling up affects the game world or the story.
The problem is that it's a completely artificial construction that takes place solely within the game rules. It has nothing to do with the fiction.
Consider this, if a Wizard never even attempts a Reflex saving throw, how exactly is he getting better at avoiding things via Reflex saving throw? Yet, regardless of how often your Reflexes are tested, regardless of how successful you were and how difficult the challenge, you always improve at the same rate as a Wizard.
Within the context of a realistic perspective from within the story, that makes zero sense. The premise (leveling within the game world/story) is flawed.
I guess part of it is understanding that we aren't just telling a story. Rather we are playing a game. Within that game is a story, but there are other things as well that are not story, that a part of the game. Understanding this also improved my GM'ing (IMO). It helped me understand better mood, tone and purpose of a moment. Sometimes we're telling a story, sometimes we aren't. Know what kind of moment you're in. Experience points and leveling are part of the game, but not part of the story.
There are other games that model advancement within the story, but they rarely use a leveling system and are typically skill based. I would check out Burning Wheel for an example of that.
Consider this, if a Wizard never even attempts a Reflex saving throw, how exactly is he getting better at avoiding things via Reflex saving throw?
I think an argument could be made that being involved in combat situations serves enough to allow the wizard's reflex save to improve even though the wizard hasn't had to make an actual Reflex saving throw.
Regardless though, the difference between a +1 or a +2 Reflex saving throw has little to no impact on the story as a whole.
I guess part of it is understanding that we aren't just telling a story. Rather we are playing a game. Within that game is a story, but there are other things as well that are not story, that a part of the game.
Which is where I think a lot of my misunderstandings come from when I see some discussions. In my way of thinking, the story takes precedence over the game. If a game rule doesn't make sense in the story, then that rule is ignored/changed.
It seems that based on what you're saying, some people prefer to separate the game component from the story component. If something on the game side doesn't mesh with the story side, then you sort of sweep it under the rug.
Assuming I understand that correctly, that actually helps quite a bit in clearing up some of my confusion.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In my way of thinking, the story takes precedence over the game. If a game rule doesn't make sense in the story, then that rule is ignored/changed.
It seems that based on what you're saying, some people prefer to separate the game component from the story component. If something on the game side doesn't mesh with the story side, then you sort of sweep it under the rug.
To offer a third perspective, I prefer to synthesize the story and the games rules/mechanics into a unified whole.
It seems to me like both of the perspectives described in the above quotation are founded on an underlying assumption that I don't categorically accept: that the narrative is a self-existent thing whose defining parameters exist independently of the game rules.
That is, both perspectives seem to assume that there was already "the story" before you even picked which system you were going to use, and then the game rules may or may not accurately represent that pre-existing story, which leads to "story versus mechanics" conflicts that you resolve in two different ways.
By contrast, I see the mechanics of the game I'm playing as defining the parameters of the setting.
Let's use the famous "lava damage" example:
The game rules say that swimming in lava deals X damage. The game rules say that Joe Farmer has so few HP that X damage would instantly kill him, and also say that high-level adventurers have so much HP that they can take X damage and keep fighting uninhibited.
The Tormsskull perspective sees the high-level survival and says, "Well, that's not how The Story works, so I'll change the game rule to match The Story."
The Irontruth perspective sees the high-level survival and says, "Well, that's not how The Story works, so I'll just compartmentalize The Story out of my head for the moment."
The two perspectives handle the situation in very different ways, but they both start with an assumption that The Story already had its own set of rules that The Game failed to synch up with.
But I reject that initial notion. I see the lava rules and say, "Okay, so that's how people and lava interact in this setting." And then I go tell some stories in that setting (unless I don't like that setting, in which case I simply don't use it).
In the context of leveling, the game tells me that doing certain types of things results in you growing more powerful while doing other types of things does not. I can simply accept that, rather than needing to "correct" the fact that it's different from other settings. Much like how I can accept that in the Harry Potter universe magic works primarily through the use of incantations and wands, and I don't say "That's not how the Force works!" and try to either change it to match Star Wars or tell myself "It's just a movie, don't think about it".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Tormsskull perspective sees the high-level survival and says, "Well, that's not how The Story works, so I'll change the game rule to match The Story."
The Irontruth perspective sees the high-level survival and says, "Well, that's not how The Story works, so I'll just compartmentalize The Story out of my head for the moment."
The two perspectives handle the situation in very different ways, but they both start with an assumption that The Story already had its own set of rules that The Game failed to synch up with.
But I reject that initial notion. I see the lava rules and say, "Okay, so that's how people and lava interact in this setting." And then I go tell some stories in that setting (unless I don't like that setting, in which case I simply don't use it).
The problem with that proposal is the bathwater-to-baby ratio. One can like a setting while not liking minor aspects of it. Star Wars? Love it,.... but midichlorians are really stupid, and so was Jar Jar. So if I were writing a Star Wars novel, I'd leave both on the cutting room floor, but I don't necessarily have that luxury if I'm running a Star Wars game, because someone may decide to make a Gungan character who is obsessed with how the Force works and keeps trying to drag the party into a midichlorian hunt.
Similarly, I like Golarion, but I hate the idea that the best way to become a wizard is to take a level in rogue at age 15 and then retrain into wizard in a week instead of spending six years at The Acadamae.
I'm sorry, when we level up it isn't just...
And then suddenly more special abilities and skills and hp?
:p
Consider this, if a Wizard never even attempts a Reflex saving throw, how exactly is he getting better at avoiding things via Reflex saving throw?I think an argument could be made that being involved in combat situations serves enough to allow the wizard's reflex save to improve even though the wizard hasn't had to make an actual Reflex saving throw.
Regardless though, the difference between a +1 or a +2 Reflex saving throw has little to no impact on the story as a whole.
I guess part of it is understanding that we aren't just telling a story. Rather we are playing a game. Within that game is a story, but there are other things as well that are not story, that a part of the game.Which is where I think a lot of my misunderstandings come from when I see some discussions. In my way of thinking, the story takes precedence over the game. If a game rule doesn't make sense in the story, then that rule is ignored/changed.
It seems that based on what you're saying, some people prefer to separate the game component from the story component. If something on the game side doesn't mesh with the story side, then you sort of sweep it under the rug.
Assuming I understand that correctly, that actually helps quite a bit in clearing up some of my confusion.
Using the Reflex example though, you have two wizards. One is required to make many, many reflex saves, they even make so many successful ones that it becomes part of the story. The other Wizard isn't even tested once and rolls zero reflex saves. Why do they both go up +1?
It doesn't make sense. It makes even less sense if they're in the same game, which is possible.
I think you're close to getting what I'm saying, but you keep adding a layer to it that isn't there for me.
I use different games for different kinds of stories. For stories where I don't want to play a game, I use no game, I just tell a story.
I recognize that the game chosen impacts the behavior at the table. I see people, like you, who seem to think that it shouldn't matter and that it doesn't matter. It does matter though. The rules are important and we should be cognizant of how they impact our behavior at the table. Not being cognizant of this means that we're spending more time and effort trying to create the mood we want and are unaware of that fact.
It's like trying to pretend that a boat will travel just as fast upstream as it will downstream. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go both directions, but be aware of when you are going in which direction and why.
I don't just sweep it under the rug. When the game elements are at their most forward, I switch out of story mode and deal with the players, not the characters, so that I can get the most out of that moment. When we get back to situations that are inside the fiction, I address the characters, not the players.
I do enjoy aspects of Pathfinder's rules, when I do, I use it for the game I want to play. When Pathfinder's rules would be detrimental to the story I want to have, I use a different game. Leveling and experience is an example of one of those rules that tend to get in the way IMO, so I often decide if this is something I'm willing to tolerate and work around, or do I just use something else.
EDIT: A work around that some people use is training. This has never made sense to me, cause if training can get you a level, why adventure, just stay with your teacher and train more. In a realistic viewpoint, both training and practical experience should be able to advance you a level, but they should do it in different ways and at different rates and work in different, but complimentary ways.
In the end, it really only serves as a time/money tax on the characters to limit how fast and with what resources they advance.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The Tormsskull perspective sees the high-level survival and says, "Well, that's not how The Story works, so I'll change the game rule to match The Story."
The Irontruth perspective sees the high-level survival and says, "Well, that's not how The Story works, so I'll just compartmentalize The Story out of my head for the moment."
The two perspectives handle the situation in very different ways, but they both start with an assumption that The Story already had its own set of rules that The Game failed to synch up with.
But I reject that initial notion. I see the lava rules and say, "Okay, so that's how people and lava interact in this setting." And then I go tell some stories in that setting (unless I don't like that setting, in which case I simply don't use it).
The problem with that proposal is the bathwater-to-baby ratio. One can like a setting while not liking minor aspects of it. Star Wars? Love it,.... but midichlorians are really stupid, and so was Jar Jar. So if I were writing a Star Wars novel, I'd leave both on the cutting room floor, but I don't necessarily have that luxury if I'm running a Star Wars game, because someone may decide to make a Gungan character who is obsessed with how the Force works and keeps trying to drag the party into a midichlorian hunt.
Similarly, I like Golarion, but I hate the idea that the best way to become a wizard is to take a level in rogue at age 15 and then retrain into wizard in a week instead of spending six years at The Acadamae.
I'm curious: if all you wanted to reply to was the "if I don't like the setting I don't use it" part, why did you carefully sculpt such a long quotation?
But anyway, the line you take issue with was an imprecise one-off and about as far from the main gist of the content of the other 95% of my post as any sentence I wrote, so try not to worry too much about that. Have any comments on the central premise?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not happy with the "rules = world" approach. Too much is too weird for me.
Yeah, over the years I've gotten the impression that my level of readiness to accept worlds functioning vastly differently from each other is... atypical. And even for me, there's aspects of the Pathfinder rules that still make me cringe (like "POOF! FREE GEAR!" mid-story when you multiclass into wizard halfway through a campaign).
But I guess I see that as more of a flaw in the design of that individual set of rules than as a flaw in the "rules = world" approach. To me it seems preferable to accept what a given publication says about its own world and then judge that world, rather than to decide in advance how a publication's world should work and then do whatever is necessary to reconcile the canonical world against that preselected standard. People would look at me like I was crazy if I applied the latter to anything other than D&D/PF, so the way the standard changes seems kind of bizarre to me.
|
Which is why you just slap a bit of a roleplaying patch on instead of just going "POOF! FREE GEAR!"
Easier to do if it's not sprung on the GM at the last moment.
"What's that? You've taken a level in Wizard? Well, as luck would have it that mook you fought last session had a training spellbook he was trying to study to do the same. Congratulations!"
I think you're close to getting what I'm saying, but you keep adding a layer to it that isn't there for me.
I know what you're saying - practice makes perfect, but the mechanics don't reflect this.
My point is that some things cause more of a separation between game mechanics and story than others. Increasing Reflex by 1 or increasing BAB or adding skill points doesn't generally cause a large dissonance between the previous level and the newly acquired level.
Other features/abilities can - particularly multiclassing.
I don't just sweep it under the rug. When the game elements are at their most forward, I switch out of story mode and deal with the players, not the characters, so that I can get the most out of that moment. When we get back to situations that are inside the fiction, I address the characters, not the players.
I'd like to see you expand on this, as I really can't picture how that works. Can you provide an example?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
During a session, if a player has a rules question, do you address them in character and have some sort of abstract GM character show up that they talk to?
Or do you talk to the person across the table from you?
|
|
During a session, if a player has a rules question, do you address them in character and have some sort of abstract GM character show up that they talk to?
Or do you talk to the person across the table from you?
In most cases, I would address the player, but in games where the game's mechanic's attempt or at least try to sync with the game world, like 1st or 2nd edition AD&D for example, then it is possible that the player winds up asking a question that the character would likely be asking (e.g. "How did that NPC just do that?") and you can have the question answered "in-game" by an NPC...
During a session, if a player has a rules question, do you address them in character and have some sort of abstract GM character show up that they talk to?
Or do you talk to the person across the table from you?
Okay, so say the scenario is the player with the fighter character decided to take a level of wizard. There has been no indication from the player that they were going to go this route, and as such we have the potential for a disruptive storyline issue.
Do you "switch out of story mode" and then address how the change is going to affect the story? Or do you simply ignore the mechanical change's impact on the story?
From a point of general gaming to me it just means "my character got stronger/better".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
During a session, if a player has a rules question, do you address them in character and have some sort of abstract GM character show up that they talk to?
Or do you talk to the person across the table from you?
Okay, so say the scenario is the player with the fighter character decided to take a level of wizard. There has been no indication from the player that they were going to go this route, and as such we have the potential for a disruptive storyline issue.
Do you "switch out of story mode" and then address how the change is going to affect the story? Or do you simply ignore the mechanical change's impact on the story?
Some of both, but this also has to do with my approach to my players and the story. Their class is rarely part of the story, unless the player is making it part of the story. I give a lot of authority to the players to make significant portions of the story, because then it means that I don't have to spend my creative efforts on everything and I can focus on making the game as cool as possible. So these things rarely come out of nowhere for me.
Second, I rarely say no to whatever my players want to play. I start by making sure that they know the direction the campaign is going and giving them as many options as I can, if they want something outside of that, I still allow it, but they have to explain it. Life is too short to not play the things we want to play. This has the added benefit that players aren't shy about telling me what they're planning. I don't say no, so they don't feel like they need to ambush me to convince me.
So, unless the addition of Wizard is actually important to the story line, I pretty much ignore it and go back to the story. If they player wants to play it out and include it in the story, I work with them to do so. Otherwise my time and energy is too precious to deal with this arbitrary thing that the game forces into the game. I make as little of a deal about it as possible and move on.
All of this is also why Pathfinder is not my game of choice, though it's one I still play because I know many people who do like it a lot. I think many of the mechanics are arbitrary and hold overs from a time when someone designed an RPG when they had no other RPG's to compare to, so they just decided it would be a certain way. That was fine in the 70's, but I personally enjoy much smoother systems that don't interrupt the story with arbitrary mechanics. I refuse to lose sleep over (or game time to) these mechanics when I am playing though.
So, unless the addition of Wizard is actually important to the story line, I pretty much ignore it and go back to the story. If they player wants to play it out and include it in the story, I work with them to do so.
Thanks for clarifying.