|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 8, 2013 8:47:03 GMT -6
I had an interesting "hmmm" thought the other day. Not like it's the first time I thought about this, but I decided to post. I'm thinking about the "Endgame" for a RPG, or when your characters have "won" and are ready to retire.
I'm pretty sure that Dave Arneson used to force retirement upon characters when they hit a certain level. I can't recall the exact number or the reference to the event, but I think that this was standard practice for him.
OD&D has "name level" which seems like a natural retirement point for many characters. At this phase in the game players can buy castles and the campaign may move on to a nation scale rather than an adventure scale. My opinion is that OD&D characters were "supposed" to retire from adventuring somewhere along the line here, even though M&M p.19 has a paragraph on extending the level charts above this point. It's also odd to note that the OD&D charts don't stop at either a particular level or a particular XP value.
AD&D took OD&D and evolved to make a maximum of 20 levels "standard." C&C wrote the PH to end at level 12, but then the CKG extends to level 24. 3E clearly went to level 20, unless you bought the "Epic" rules which went to level 30.
Where am I going with this?
What strikes me as strange is that in a game where accumulating XP is important, and where each class has a different XP chart, why would the Endgame ever be expressed in terms of levels instead of XP?
In other words: why not have a magic XP number and say "when you hit this you retire, no matter what your level"?
|
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Sept 8, 2013 17:40:21 GMT -6
NPCs?
That is to say, I think those expanded charts are probably most useful for the purposes of figuring out the abilities of powerful NPCs who are no longer adventurers themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Sept 8, 2013 18:24:48 GMT -6
In other words: why not have a magic XP number and say "when you hit this you retire, no matter what your level"? I think the answer is that XP have no real utility other than to reach some level. There are no mechanisms that kick in when you reach a multiple of 1,000 or 10,000 or whatever. All of the power acquisition and game balance tuning is focused on levels - demi-humans cap out at a level, abilities are granted when levels are achieved, so the "graduation" to "end-game" (is this an OSR term or does it occur in the mid to late 70s?) or stronghold/ barony focus is also level based. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 8, 2013 18:46:30 GMT -6
In other words: why not have a magic XP number and say "when you hit this you retire, no matter what your level"? I think the answer is that XP have no real utility other than to reach some level. There are no mechanisms that kick in when you reach a multiple of 1,000 or 10,000 or whatever. All of the power acquisition and game balance tuning is focused on levels - demi-humans cap out at a level, abilities are granted when levels are achieved, so the "graduation" to "end-game" (is this an OSR term or does it occur in the mid to late 70s?) or stronghold/ barony focus is also level based. There are no *powers* keyed to xp instead of level, but there is definitely a mechanism linked to xp instead of level: support costs. As to the original question, I think linking retirement to xp introduces a problem when using the original hit dice progression: not everyone gains hit dice at the same rate, and in fact it jumps around. Look at the following xp targets and the associated levels/hit dice: - 100,000 xp: 7th level Fighter (7+1 HD), 9th level M-U (6+1 HD), 8th level Cleric (7 HD)
- 200,000 xp: 8th level Fighter (8+2 HD), 10th level M-U (7 HD), 9th level Cleric (7+1 HD)
- 300,000 xp: 9th level Fighter (9+3 HD), 11th level M-U (8+1 HD), 10th level Cleric (7+2 HD)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2013 19:59:06 GMT -6
You're looking at it backwards.
The very first sentence of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (TSR, 1974) is
"ONCE UPON A TIME, long, long ago there was a little group known as the Castle and Crusade Society."
Name level isn't "you must retire your character." Name level is "you must be at least this tall to get on this ride." Becoming a Great Power in the World was the POINT. Everything before that was prolog.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Sept 8, 2013 20:50:38 GMT -6
I think the answer is that XP have no real utility other than to reach some level. There are no mechanisms that kick in when you reach a multiple of 1,000 or 10,000 or whatever. All of the power acquisition and game balance tuning is focused on levels - demi-humans cap out at a level, abilities are granted when levels are achieved, so the "graduation" to "end-game" (is this an OSR term or does it occur in the mid to late 70s?) or stronghold/ barony focus is also level based. There are no *powers* keyed to xp instead of level, but there is definitely a mechanism linked to xp instead of level: support costs. I thought that someone might dig up some trifling mechanism keyed to XP. The point that a PC's XP by itself is of little importance still stands. I have just skimmed through 1e AD&D PHB and DMG and have not found any mechanisms there based on XP as opposed to level there either. I think it is a sound answer to the original question that XP itself, as opposed to level which is derived from XP, is just not a very important value for a PC. |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Sept 8, 2013 21:57:27 GMT -6
In other words: why not have a magic XP number and say "when you hit this you retire, no matter what your level"? I've never refereed or played an "endgame". That said, it strikes me that imposing an arbitrary fixed experience point maximum would be sort of perverse. I could imagine a player having his character leave that Dragon horde alone just so he could keep having fun.  I would think that whether or not an endgame came about should be partly up to the players and what they desired combined with the particular circumstances of the world, as well as what the Referee wanted or had the ability to provide. Or have I misunderstood the question? |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 8, 2013 22:43:46 GMT -6
I've never refereed or played an "endgame". That said, it strikes me that imposing an arbitrary fixed experience point maximum would be sort of perverse. I could imagine a player having his character leave that Dragon horde alone just so he could keep having fun. I would think that whether or not an endgame came about should be partly up to the players and what they desired combined with the particular circumstances of the world, as well as what the Referee wanted or had the ability to provide. Or have I misunderstood the question? I believe it is stated that PCs must pay 1% of their total XP value monthly on basic upkeep. That may have been AD&D, though, but I don't think so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2013 22:58:14 GMT -6
I believe it is stated that PCs must pay 1% of their total XP value monthly on basic upkeep. That may have been AD&D, though, but I don't think so. OD&D Volume III (U&WA) page 24 (top of page) |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Sept 9, 2013 7:14:34 GMT -6
In other words: why not have a magic XP number and say "when you hit this you retire, no matter what your level"? I've never refereed or played an "endgame". That said, it strikes me that imposing an arbitrary fixed experience point maximum would be sort of perverse. [...] I would think that whether or not an endgame came about should be partly up to the players and what they desired combined with the particular circumstances of the world, as well as what the Referee wanted or had the ability to provide. Thumbs up (as we can't exalt any more). The end of a game for me has always come when the players or referee or both had become bored and wanted to try something new. That might happen at any point, no matter the level of experience of the characters. And it might not be a permanent end, either - many's the time when campaigns or characters have been dusted off and brought back to the table, sometimes with significant events being written in to account for the "downtime", sometimes carrying straight on in game time even tough years have passed in the real world. This has always been my most deeply felt opinion about the core of what a roleplaying game is - there is no winning or losing, no "end". Er, I don't think that answers your question, does it Fin?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 10:14:35 GMT -6
Crom's hairy nutsack, does nobody play chess?
"Endgame" does not mean "end of game."
And this notion of "leave the dragon horde alone so he could keep having fun" -- that would be like deliberately flunking a class so you could keep playing high school football instead of moving on.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 9, 2013 11:38:32 GMT -6
I believe it is stated that PCs must pay 1% of their total XP value monthly on basic upkeep. That may have been AD&D, though, but I don't think so. OD&D Volume III (U&WA) page 24 (top of page) Yep, that's what I was referring to as well. Notably, U&WA doesn't say whether this is per week, per month, or what have you; I know it's in AD&D as well, and I believe AD&D does specify "per month". It's not really a "trifling mechanism", as jmccann referred to it earlier. The support and upkeep costs encourage the player to keep adventuring at the low levels, to pay expenses, and to build a stronghold at some point, to avoid future payments. It's also a tiny tip of the hat towards "realism", without getting mired down in more complicated calculations or role-playing every minor negotiation for food, lodging, housewares, and taxes. I've noticed, though, that some people object strongly to the rule because it's based on experience points; there's a strong tendency to think of xp as being pure metagame and not a representation of something in the game world, and using it for support and upkeep calculations bothers them. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Sept 9, 2013 13:07:01 GMT -6
OD&D Volume III (U&WA) page 24 (top of page) Yep, that's what I was referring to as well. Notably, U&WA doesn't say whether this is per week, per month, or what have you; I know it's in AD&D as well, and I believe AD&D does specify "per month".
In The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, "support and upkeep" for men-at-arms, and costs for specialists are paid on a monthly basis; I don't see why this wouldn't be so for player characters as well. It's more than, but still comparable to, the rates for men-at-arms. A fighting-man with 8,000 experience points hits 10% more often than a fighting-man with 4,000 experience points; I'd call that "something in the game world." Experience points are your level; the latter is just a name for the former. If you've noted your class and your experience on your character sheet, you don't actually need to write down your level by name or number. Don't know it? Look it up on the table on p. 16 of Men & Magic. And I think we can agree that your level does have an impact on the game world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Sept 9, 2013 20:33:16 GMT -6
The games in which I run and play really don't reach an end. The ones that we don't find fun fall to the way side. The ones we enjoy we continue. We have one campaign that started in high school or college (95-98), that is still played. It was originally with AD&D 2nd ed, progressed to 3.0, then 3.5, and now Pathfinder where it has and will likely stay.
The single remaining player is a level 24 wizard, and I am the DM. The player finds the game immensely fun and that is primarily why we continue to play. It is very much a thought exercise and the themes pursued would likely be viewed as silly here, so I won't bore with details. I do admit that we have taken 1-4 year breaks between runs of the game in order for me to understand how to prepare and run a campaign with the powers available to a character at that level: especially a wizard. There is so much that the character can do, and yet he is still very fragile. We spend a lot of time with RP and realm building/maintenance. He sometimes travels and when bored might dally through some low-level quest I have sitting on the side.
With my group the campaigns always continued. We never viewed 20 as a limit, although we've only had a couple of players reach it in the 20+ years we have played. When characters are retired it is boredom with the character, campaign, or character death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Sept 9, 2013 21:11:35 GMT -6
Living to level 20? You clearly need to ramp up your sadism sir.
Also theres a reason why prolonged games are campaigns, because the heroes stop adventuring and start campaigning.
Any fighting man who somehow manages to become a lord and doesn't choose to retire (to become a warlord intent on carving out an empire), is going to have a bad time.
Try sprinkling around a few balrogs and see if they've changed their minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Sept 9, 2013 21:37:05 GMT -6
Any fighting man who somehow manages to become a lord and doesn't choose to retire (to become a warlord intent on carving out an empire), is going to have a bad time. How is that retiring? I think part of the disconnect here is that everyone is looking at it as if the game were only about one group that looks like the Fellowship of the Ring. The campaigns the rules were made for are much larger, with some characters off doing their own things while others get together for adventures. It's a whole ecosystem of adventures and armies and monsters, and your weekend adventurers are only a small part of it. You're never going to run out of things to do, unless you insist on doing only one thing and ignoring all the others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 22:46:55 GMT -6
Any fighting man who somehow manages to become a lord and doesn't choose to retire (to become a warlord intent on carving out an empire), is going to have a bad time. How is that retiring? I think part of the disconnect here is that everyone is looking at it as if the game were only about one group that looks like the Fellowship of the Ring. The campaigns the rules were made for are much larger, with some characters off doing their own things while others get together for adventures. It's a whole ecosystem of adventures and armies and monsters, and your weekend adventurers are only a small part of it. You're never going to run out of things to do, unless you insist on doing only one thing and ignoring all the others. Ding! Winner. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Sept 10, 2013 19:33:03 GMT -6
Any fighting man who somehow manages to become a lord and doesn't choose to retire (to become a warlord intent on carving out an empire), is going to have a bad time. How is that retiring? Because they are suddenly the ones playing chess instead of just pieces. They have political adventures, not treasure hunts in the forest. I may have a faulty view of retirement. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 10, 2013 19:48:55 GMT -6
Well, we *could* distinguish between retirement of a character and retirement from a specific line of activity, like adventuring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Sept 10, 2013 21:00:28 GMT -6
Thanks.
That is what I was unable to put into words.
I have difficulty translating my intent into a clear phrase.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 11, 2013 3:48:26 GMT -6
This is excellent discussion, but not quite the focus of my original (poorly worded) question. I guess the bottom line is that I wonder why they design class charts to go up to a certain level instead of a certain XP value.
When a thief hits 20th level a fighter might only be 17th. Assuming that they adventure together and have the same number of XP, why design both classes to go to 20th. Or, if you want the fighter to go to 20th, why not design the thief to go to 23rd (or whatever) to "end" at the same XP value?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Sept 11, 2013 4:24:48 GMT -6
Retracted - I had the wrong info!
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Sept 11, 2013 5:30:06 GMT -6
Assuming that they adventure together and have the same number of XP Well there's yer problem! |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 11, 2013 6:41:18 GMT -6
Assuming that they adventure together and have the same number of XP Well there's yer problem! You don't just tally up total XP and divide equally among all of the players? I don't usually use XP; I just assumed that everyone got equal shares of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Sept 11, 2013 8:42:47 GMT -6
Your faulty assumption is that the authors planned for a group of characters whose membership did not change for ten levels. The game was designed around characters, not parties. Whoever showed up to play on a given day took their characters—and entourages—on adventures; whoever didn't show up didn't go on that adventure. High-level characters tended to adventure alone or spend much of their time on politics and war—not because they were retired, but because ruling a domain is not something you do as a party. For an introduction to domain rulership in D&D, see Frank Mentzer's Companion Set. The details are different from what Dave Arneson did, but it's just another set of rules for the same thing, and it's written assuming you know nothing about the subject. (And it doesn't include miniatures wargaming, but uses the War Machine rules to abstractly calculate the outcome of battles.)
The XP tables were arranged to give weaker classes faster development, to keep those classes as attractive possibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Sept 11, 2013 9:01:14 GMT -6
What Stormcrow said. Between some players that play multiple times per week vs. those that play only once a month or two, new PCs being introduced as new players join or to replace dead PCs, solo adventures, and a variety of other factors it would actually be rare for any two PCs past level 3 to have the exact same exp. total at the exact same time.
Besides, exp. is awarded for treasure and it is up to the players to determine how treasure is divided. Usually they split thing equally but there are times when they don't, especially when rare and powerful magic items are included. So no, exp. is not always divided equally among the party.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 10:07:02 GMT -6
This is excellent discussion, but not quite the focus of my original (poorly worded) question. I guess the bottom line is that I wonder why they design class charts to go up to a certain level instead of a certain XP value. I don't think the class tables were "designed" rather, they evolved. As some point the XP charts were written with variable XP based on class but with no actual end. You just added 120,000 (or so) XP per level forever and ever. It was a formula, rather than a chart. Which is why you see mention of 44th or 150th level characters. When Gary wrote AD&D, he didn't changed the XP per class concept but just created the table to show the results of the formula to levels up to 20. This keeps the class tables the same size while at the same time keeping the fighter from asking "why can't my character go to 23rd level like the thief?" I don't know if the Players Handbook actually said you had to stop at level 20. I'll defer to AD&D types to answer that question. But it is interesting why so few game rules use XP rather than level. Even level draining could have been XP draining to affect all characters equally. |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Sept 11, 2013 20:57:16 GMT -6
It appears that some (although not all - talysman disagrees with me but I think understands what I am saying) people on this thread do not understand what I am saying. With the single exception pointed out by talysman, experience points do NOT determine game mechanisms. XP and character class combine to determine a level (plus some state history in the case of multi-class characters) - and this single exception is eliminated in AD&D. It is LEVEL, a function of class and XP, that determines nearly all mechanisms that vary with experience - not XP considered alone. Given this it would be unusual for the so-called endgame to kick in at an XP threshold as opposed to a level threshold which we see.
So with that out of the way, I think the reason is that Gygax (perhaps Arneson as well? I don't know how closely Gygax's class progression tables followed Arneson's) deliberately did not want raw XP to be a highly influential figure, rather XP is modulated by the class/ state history of the character. Clerics rocket through the levels while M-Us reach levels most slowly. But there are other interesting effects. Take ATTACK MATRIX 1: MEN ATTACKING on p. 19 (6th ed.) of M&M, we see fighters advance to a more effective matrix column every 3 levels, making up somewhat for the slower level progression compared to clerics, and M-Us once again get the rawest deal on this table.
I think game considerations likely drive this. He wanted the classes to have a certain relationship with each other, and tying game mechanisms to level as opposed to raw XP gives a way to set up these relationships.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 14, 2013 5:33:02 GMT -6
Ther's the problem of PC death. Those players whose PC was killed multiple times are going to have less experience points than the PC who survived through many games. |
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Sept 14, 2013 21:59:57 GMT -6
I feel like this is being over-analyzed. Character ability varied by name level (hero, super-hero, magician, wizard, etc). There was a need to keep score to know when a player had enough points to increase a level. Hence experience points. They didn't have anything mechanical attached to them because level already did that, and was the right 'granularity' for associating abilities. XP is too fine grained to attach mechanics (ie. what needs 10000s of incremental differences)? Though maintenance costs - that's something that could use that level of granularity - and lo-and-behold, it's used for that! Just opinion. |
|
I would think that whether or not an endgame came about should be partly up to the players and what they desired combined with the particular circumstances of the world, as well as what the Referee wanted or had the ability to provide. Or have I misunderstood the question?
