(fwd) Re: Roleplaying

[s001gmu at nova.wright.edu]

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:

> From: cimri <cimri1 at gte.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
> Subject: Re: Roleplaying
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 22:31:46 -0800
> 
> KaVir, Richard Woolcock, and Aristotle, in their brave fight
> against spam wrote various words more or less summarizable as:
> 
> - life has levels
> - no it doesn't, it's more like skill-based
> - no no, life is like both skill-based and level-based systems
> 
> and the phrase 'a single level' (apparently meaning using a single
> value to express a complex set of attainments, experiences, powers,
> and the like) was used, presumably to distinguish it from having
> 'many levels.'
> 
> </synopsis>
> 
> Like that fella from Fiddler on the Roof says: you are all right.
> 
> A working definition for the sake of discussion: I propose that 'level'
> mean 'level of experience' and refer more or less to what we mean when
> we say 'that person has a great deal of (or not much) experience.
> 
> Yes, level has been used as a single expression of power, where your
> level expressed how good you were at everything, or at least how
> good you were in the collection of powers and skills related to your
> chosen profession.  This is clearly silly, though I don't think any
> where near as silly as most would have us believe.  That is, though
> I think there are better ways to do it, still, using level as a
> single expression of power can be defended fairly well without
> stretching too much.
> 
> And yes, the idea of HPs rising with level stretches things a bit too.
> ALSO not as much as people would have us believe.  For instance, it
> is not that great a stretch to look at HP as some sort of expression
> of one's ability to absorb/avoid/maneuver away from damage, not JUST
> bodily physical damage.  So as one 'rose in level' one gained more HP
> which represented a certain experience reflected in combat survivability
> through (for example) wiser use of maneuvers, or whatever.  I do think
> it makes more _sense_ to leave HP pretty much constant and to vary
> your 'survivability' by adding in combat-related dodge or parry or
> whatever skills.  But rising HP with level is by no means totally
> indefensible.

As I recall, this very nicely summarizes how AD&D's system is _supposed_
to work.  The main problem that people have with a Level/HP based on level
system is that there seems to be an inconsistancy.  HP represents not only
physical toughness, but also the 'survivability' mentioned above.  The
perceived discrepancy comes from overlooking the resulting complexity of
the rest of the system.  By simplifying 'toughness' and 'survivability'
into one value, you have to complicate the rest of the system to
compensate... which many people forget.  I'll use one of my favorite
Dragon Mirths (from Dragon Magazine... I forget which issue, but I can
look it up if anyone is interested) as a case in point.  An ogre is tied
to a tree, riddled with arrows and sneering.  A mage with a clipboard is
tallying the Ogre's remaining HP and telling the archer near by "Ok, 2
more arrows should do him in!"  The scene in question forgets to
compensate for the Ogre's reduced ability to use his 'survivability', due
to his restraints.  Unless the archer is a complete pleeb, he should have
been able to do the Ogre in with at most 2 arrows.  This happens all too
often with such systems, and is, IMHO the primary cuase for people
discounting them as 'unrealistic'.

> ---
> 
> Okay, all that said, one could easily still have a skill-based system,
> or at least a system which includes skills/abilities/etc which are
> somehow increased in effectivenes through use or practice, and each
> may be increased independently of the other, generally.  And this
> skill-based system could still use the idea of 'levels of experience.'
> And this could still represent, in some meaningful way, an analog
> to real life.

[...]
 
> Either way, levels of experience, or just levels, can be meaningful
> as an expression of some sort of overall attainment, and levels are
> not at all incompatible with skill-based OR roleplaying systems.
> Or so I would happily assert.

I agree entirely.  You just have to remember to take into account what all
you are lumping together into a 'level' and how that 'level' is used
within the rest of the system.  Remembering that you can't just blindly
apply the rules of the system to a level, that you have to modify how the
level is interepreted and affected based on the situation, makes levels
(or hp, or any other lumped-together value) quite viable.  A well built
MUD should have no problems with such a system.  Of course, the key words
there are "well built".  ;)


-Greg