However, you also want to keep things balanced. Imbalance is part of the game. An old lady with a collapsed lung is going to be no match for Mike Tyson in a boxing match.
Yes, but what about a level 20 old lady with a collapsed lung versus a level 1 Mike Tyson?
Kidding aside, I can see your point and appreciate your response.
XP/Levels: Threats, Balance, and Reward
You are absolutely right that differentiating opponents by level makes categorization easier in terms of mapping territory and determining chance encounters based on threat level (especially if you have a larger bestiary to choose from). I've found that ranking doesn't even have to be limited to numerical levels and could even be as simple as low/moderate/high/
RUN! category threats (a
very basic system which I currently use).
Opponent levels aren't really an issue. Complications come into play more with PC levels that constantly place opponent in flux in terms of actual threat level and acceptable variances. These complications aren't bad when properly accounted for, but this dynamic can be difficult for, well,
certain players to appreciate let alone calculate in the moment.
Another issue I've seen in other's sessions is that the way levels and XP were
designed aren't necessarily how they are
understood by players. Of course, this isn't an issue for people who use it as intended (to help
balance the game), but in terms of also being a
reward system it can be taken the wrong way and misunderstood by players. For example, some players might expect/demand a reward for killing pretty much anything (including friendly/defenseless NPCs) and, if they don't get the XP/reward they feel entitled to, claim that the GM is unfairly stifling their progress.
To be clear:
there is nothing wrong with levels/XP when used appropriately, it's just that some players don't know (or don't care) that it's more than just a reward system. This is likely because players are generally more focused on personal progress, while game balance falls under the GM's purview. Consequently, as GM, if there are viable alternatives to the level/XP systems (and it sounds like there are a few) then I am interested for the sake of my players.
So far, I have been encouraged by what I've found here.
Imbalance: Chance and Design
While imbalance is part of the game, potentially game-breaking mechanics generally aren't desirable (outside of silly fun sessions where anything goes).
I don't think you are advocating for anything game-breaking though, so maybe I should articulate my position better.
Simply put: collaborative storytelling is at the heart of the roleplaying experience and each person has their role (GM and players). Rolling dice adds an element of chance to the experience and spices things up. If the experience is too linear then it becomes too predictable. Too chaotic and it can be overwhelming or even underwhelming (too easy for PCs to win/die).
The dice don't
have to be game-breaking (a good GM will know how to handle things), but they
can be if one lets them and more so if it is part of a system's inherent design.
In terms of balance, my preferred approach tough but fair with clear indicators where brute force isn't an option. This is why my player's Collapsed Lung Brigade of old ladies won't be up against Mike Tyson... until they are ready (obtain enough mithril knitting needles, cybernetic implants, and recruit the ghost of Evander Holyfield's right ear).
By the way, thanks for reminding me to give my pdf of Knave another look. I picked it up in 2018 (along with a host of other systems for review) and it stood out as a very rules-light system.
I really like this concept. I had an idea of something kind of like this but PKD-based with a lot of reality shifting and not everyone shared the same reality but I was never able to actually try it. I almost think you'd need special technology to do something like this, which is interesting because we probably actually have it now.
Glad you liked it. Shame you haven't had the opportunity to try your scenario yet because it sounds like a good time.
The main campaign with my players had their PCs intermittently pulled from different places (and possibly different times) and given some equipment to complete a task. If they survive to complete the task, they get to go home until they are summoned again. To add a little intrigue, there was also a running sub plot where they would occasionally come across an NPC from another faction who was trying to help them break free from whatever was summoning them. They weren't an enemy of the PCs per se, but they were certainly opposed to whatever entity was making use of them. This led the players to wonder who to trust, as they appeared to just be means to an end for either side. Good times.
I find that simple concepts with complex implications tend to be the most engaging. My players weren't always the most proactive, so a scenario where the adventure aggressively comes to them, provides them motivation to bond as a team, and lets them pop in and out of the campaign (and rotate around the NPCs that help them) worked best. Plus, each new challenge helped to develop my current system in a narratively satisfying way for my "playtesters".
Anyway, be sure to post if/when you get a chance to try our idea. I would be curious to know how it went.
