Level progression and Ultimate Power

[tibbius]

One of the ways to group games is by how much they are willing to indulge players' power fantasies.

Some, like 1e or some of the newer alternative games, don't go very far that way.

Others (particularly 3e onward), as well as the explicitly superhero games, go really far in that direction toward the upper levels.

Some people prefer to play only the lower levels of those games that progress toward Ultimate Power. The whole "E6" thing, etc. Other prefer to start with the higher levels. Or the mid-levels. Level 3 is a pretty popular starting point in 1e.

It seems like the "mainline" games have trended more toward power fantasy indulgence over time, and that maybe some of the newer games were developed in reaction to that trend.

Not sure what I'm thinking about all this. Is it something that other people notice or care about?

[Leitz]

I think there's are two middle-grounds that often get less time. The first one is the "levels 4-8"; the characters have some competence and won't likely die from falling down the stairs. This is the bulk of the "serious adventurers", at least in my mind. An experienced party, if the players are also experienced, can handle some very tough challenges. It's not "walk in and slice the demon lord up" level, but having to think through issues and come up with solid plans. In many ways, this is the level of play Traveller has. Except, of course, you can still die easily in Traveller.

The second middle-ground is the "name" level. Challenges become vastly different; the PCs are involved in intrigue and furthering national interests, not just getting more gold and learning a new spell or three. On a different site I played a Three Kingdoms Chinese general, and it was awesome to figure out economics for the province, limiting retainers due to said income, and leading armies to victory. It is rare to find a DM who can run that sort of game, almost as rare as players who enjoy it.

And then yeah, you hit the super high levels. Each of us has different game styles we like. I'm not really up for the super high nor the "scraping for coppers" low. Trying to find a middle-ground is tough, though.

[AsenRG]

Yeah, that Three Kingdoms game was fun! Except I don't think it's that hard to find players for that style of game.

And of course, I prefer combining that style with "still easy to die", as in Traveller.

[whattime]

It seems like the "mainline" games have trended more toward power fantasy indulgence over time, and that maybe some of the newer games were developed in reaction to that trend.

Not sure what I'm thinking about all this. Is it something that other people notice or care about?

When I read through the AD&D core books as a teenager, my impression was that the game as written kind of expected that horrible and unfixable things might happen to PCs, and that they might make it to mid- or high-level. Maybe. Looking back at the 70s D&D material, it seems much more likely that terrible htings would happen and that one would run through a lot of characters. I recognize this is a very basic observation. But I say it just to say...that it did seem that way.

When I played 3E or 3.5 with friends when it was current, I really had a hard time adapting to the game as written. It seemed like a lot of work that I wasn't interested in doing (choosing feats, counting, worrying, rolling a lot of dice and adding) and wasn't very good at for a result that I didn't really want: a more powerful, almost immortal character that allowed me to do more of the mechanics that I didn't like. It felt like succeeding at the game (advancing, etc.) was a punishment. I really wanted to be into D&D. I just felt like it had moved on without me.

When I moved to a new area some years ago, I found a group that were doing, I think, Pathfinder. They were really welcoming guys and I was lucky to meet them. They were clearly there to have fun rather than beat each other up with loopholes and so on. But I just couldn't get into it.

That's around when I ran into the OSR stuff. I really dug a lot of the ideas out there, and the games sounded like they could be really fun. But time is hard to come by and I basically have no time away from a computer these days.

(This is in no way an indictment of how anyone plays any game or what they think is fun. I'm just not that sure if anyone out there shares my ideas of what "fun" would be. Personally, I'm not very attracted to in-game power as an end in itself, and I find that I'm also not very interested in the extreme "storytelling" side. I haven't really played in a while, but my dream campaign is more about scraping by, squeaking through, and maybe dying. And maybe something really heroic, exceptoinal, or cool sometimes, but not guaranteed. There are great forums, and this appears to be one, and I've enjoyed so much reading people's posts about these games, but despite all the good examples, I have trouble putting what I actually want into words. My main temptation is to try running a PbP with the caveat that I'm not 100% how it will go, describe what I intend, and see if anyone else out there is interested.)

[Leitz]

I found 1st edition AD&D to be generational. The PCs, if they worked hard at it, could become lords and leaders. That's an interesting game, but sometimes it was fun to take a minor follower and play them as a PC. As you said elsewhere, often an armed conflict helps us step away from mundane matters. Playing a baron might not give that, but playing a senior guard, sent to investigate a rumor of orc raids, can.

The most fun for me are the games where I'm reasonably sure my character won't die just because of a bad dice roll. That frees me to play them in a heroic manner; courting and cheating death by brains or brawn.This doesn't mean there's no risk, and I've put my characters into situations where it was highly likely they would die. But a great story was in process and the death would have brought something meaningful to the tale. When I run, the players can usually find a way for their characters not to die. A creative solution can usually work, if done well.

I spend a good bit of time thinking through a character's back-story. Who are they, and why are they like they are? It isn't really worth my time to make up a character that will die in the first game or two. I find it neither heroic nor fun. I really enjoy dealing with NPCs; once I know who my character is, they can accomplish huge things in game by cooperation and teamwork. They can accomplish things I cannot, in real life. One Traveller Marine averted a planetary bloodbath, brought two super-powers to the negotiation table, and then stepped back so the smart people could achieve ultimate success. He played to his very few strengths; Combat Rifleman-1, Blade-1, VaccSuit-1, and a focused passion for success. In a month of "in game" time, four years of real life time, and he went from being the security guard to interstellar hero. In the end, he took his fiance home and they settled down to raise a family.

[whattime]

I spend a good bit of time thinking through a character's back-story. Who are they, and why are they like they are? It isn't really worth my time to make up a character that will die in the first game or two. I find it neither heroic nor fun. I really enjoy dealing with NPCs; once I know who my character is, they can accomplish huge things in game by cooperation and teamwork. They can accomplish things I cannot, in real life. One Traveller Marine averted a planetary bloodbath, brought two super-powers to the negotiation table, and then stepped back so the smart people could achieve ultimate success. He played to his very few strengths; Combat Rifleman-1, Blade-1, VaccSuit-1, and a focused passion for success. In a month of "in game" time, four years of real life time, and he went from being the security guard to interstellar hero. In the end, he took his fiance home and they settled down to raise a family.

See, this second bit I bolded sounds really cool. The real experience you had with this character was worthwhile, even for me, and I just heard about it in a couple sentences.

Regarding the first bit I bolded: I'm inclined to want "just" to play for a while and "try on" the character, using him kind of as a waldo at first. Then, if he survives (or even if not), start to flesh out whatever half-baked notions I started with.

That's my preference, but probably not because of any deeply-held beliefs about gaming. I think it's likely that any character I design is going to (kind of) be me, and I feel too exposed in writing all that up at the start. I can do it, and have done it, but I feel embarrassed. If I let the character have some in-game experiences first, then I feel like the character is "justified" by those experiences for which I'm not fully responsible (DM, setting, other players, rolls).

[Leitz]

I think it's likely that any character I design is going to (kind of) be me

I work that two ways; my characters are usually something like me, but I aim to achieve something through them that I would not be able to do in real life. For example, that character wasn't really a trained leader, but he encouraged and implored. He got NPCs to do what needed to be done because he couldn't do it himself.

Bringing yourself to the game builds "transference"; the ability to get into the story and "become" the character. If we're not telling a story, then let's play chess, or Risk. That's why I like the middle level of gaming; you're not as likely to "die", and thus get ripped out of the story.

I spend a good bit of time thinking through a character's back-story. Who are they, and why are they like they are? It isn't really worth my time to make up a character that will die in the first game or two. I find it neither heroic nor fun. I really enjoy dealing with NPCs; once I know who my character is, they can accomplish huge things in game by cooperation and teamwork. They can accomplish things I cannot, in real life. One Traveller Marine averted a planetary bloodbath, brought two super-powers to the negotiation table, and then stepped back so the smart people could achieve ultimate success. He played to his very few strengths; Combat Rifleman-1, Blade-1, VaccSuit-1, and a focused passion for success. In a month of "in game" time, four years of real life time, and he went from being the security guard to interstellar hero. In the end, he took his fiance home and they settled down to raise a family.

See, this second bit I bolded sounds really cool. The real experience you had with this character was worthwhile, even for me, and I just heard about it in a couple sentences.

It was life-changing for me. I really enjoyed the game, and wound up writing dozens of stories and scenes. I've actually taken the child that was "on the way" at the end of the game and started writing novels about her. One of these days, if I don't croak off first, I'm going to turn the game into a novel; it will be the prequel to the series I'm doing now.

[tibbius]

Having Dm'd for Leitz I'll say that his approach to gaming is the polar opposite of 3.5e+ powergaming. He takes a totally mundane character (maybe a bit above average, but doesn't have to be) and makes them live.

[AsenRG]

Having Dm'd for Leitz I'll say that his approach to gaming is the polar opposite of 3.5e+ powergaming. He takes a totally mundane character (maybe a bit above average, but doesn't have to be) and makes them live.

Having played and GMed for Leitz, I can confirm.