> Mark "Tipop" Williams
>
> That sounds like specious logic. Look at a Vampire, Gurps,
> Talislanta,
> Runequest, or just about any other rpg ever made... you can tell
> at a glance
> the approximate power level of any character, if you're familiar with the
> system. Levels are only useful for beginner players and GMs who are still
> new to the game mechanics.
I couldn't disagree more. I've been gaming for about 20 years now, in games
with levels and in games without. The primary difference is not
ease-of-play, because both have their trade-offs from that perspective. The
differences is when you do the work when matching up PCs to challenges.
In a level-based system, every entity has a summary number associated with
it - their level, challenge rating, or whatever. This represents some
effort that went into the design of the creature and an analysis by the
designer of how 'tough' the critter is. This summary number then becomes
the basis of comparison between critters.
In a skill-based system, there is (by definition) no summary number. When
you are comparing critters to PCs (or critters to each other), you must do
the analysis every time. GMs quickly get tired of this, and learn to
pre-build this analysis factor, either in their heads or they work out some
kind of formula to make it work. The funny thing is, these analysis factors
and formulae are the same ones used in level-based systems for exactly the
same purpose.
In the end, the only difference between the two is the granularity of
control the PC has over their character advancement, the amount of
record-keeping to manage a character, and the amount of work the designer
shoveled off to the GM when they built the game.
May GMs and players like this degree of freedom and level of responsibility.
Others don't. That's why there are both in the marketplace. Honestly,
converting the d20 System to a skill-less game would be very easy. But
keeping it balanced would be a Herculean task.
One may argue (as you have done) that the quantity of skill-based games
demonstrates their superiority. I argue it proves just the opposite. Since
it is those GMs who have an inclination towards game design who are most
likely to create skill-based games (because they saw a lack-of-control in
their old level-based games), it is no wonder that there are so many. It is
also no surprise that many skill-based systems suffer from balance problems,
because designing a game is MUCH harder to do than running one and by its
very nature a balanced skill-based system is harder to design than a
level-based one (though an unbalanced one is much easier to design than an
unbalanced level-based one).
Please don't misunderstand - I think there are some very fine skill-based
games out there, and there are some that are well-balanced and
well-designed. But they are the exception rather than the rule, and more
noteworthy because of it. The best designs leverage the strengths of both
philosophies and work to minimize their shortcomings. I think the d20
system is an object lesson in exactly this, and based on my experience so
far it's balance mechanics are outstanding.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
