Comments on: Zelda Adventure System: Rationale Behind the Game’s Experience Mechanic

By: LS

LS — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:37:05 +0000

That is a really good point. Very interesting!

By: GreyKnight

GreyKnight — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:16:40 +0000

Did you notice the close relationship between getting a Heart Container (by defeating a Great Monster) and gaining a level (also by defeating a Great Monster)? In my own Zelda RPG musings I have dealt with this by conflating them directly: a Heart Container is basically a level-up. Your above comment about “partial level” goals is then trivial to implement: it’s a Heart Piece!

By: LS

LS — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:13:16 +0000

It’s a good idea, and something similar to that might even end up in the final version of the game based on how playtesting goes.

As it stands I’d like leveling to feel somewhat consistent throughout. A max level character in this system isn’t too different from a low level character, since items are where most of the game’s progression comes from.

By: richard

richard — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:14:09 +0000

I love the cleanliness of one boss and/or one Great Treasure (and/or one stated goal/quest) = one level. BUT I still like it that higher levels are harder to reach than lower ones (so the challenges have to scale up to keep advancement at the same pace and, most importantly, so replacements for dead characters can get back up to speed with the party faster than the party will level ahead of them).

So I might reintroduce xp, but on this scheme: you need as many as the level you want to get to. So to go from 1st to 2nd you need 2, from 2nd to 3rd you need 3 etc. And then each great monster, treasure and goal is assigned an xp total (like 1-10). That _could_ actually work as a flailsnails standard (which is currently an undiscussed mess).

By: LS

LS — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:56:51 +0000

You could also find a happy medium. There is mundane treasure, which you find all the time. Great Treasure, which grants you a level, and Notable Treasure, which grants you 1/10th of a level.

Still simple, while allowing for some progress between great treasures.

I don’t think this will be a problem in LOZAS, though I have a few ideas for solutions if it becomes a problem. My thinking is that a given dungeon would take 2-4 sessions to complete. A megadungeon might exist, but it probably have more than one great monster in it.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:48:57 +0000

Maybe finding incidental and useful “treasure” would still keep interest, even if the treasure is not itself worth XP.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:46:42 +0000

I was thinking about this, and it seems like it might be a problem with big monsters, too, especially if the dungeons leading to them are rather complicated and interesting on their own (as many Zelda dungeons are).

By: Brendan

Brendan — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:45:07 +0000

Beowulf, Grendel… details, details!

By: LS

LS — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:42:59 +0000

I like the idea of great treasure. Though I worry that if such a game progressed at the rate Pahvelorn has, then the players would start to despair of ever getting to level 2.

We’ve played 7 sessions, and no one is level 2 yet. We’re cool with that because we can track our progress and see ourselves get closer. If 7 sessions had gone by and none of us felt any closer to level 2 than we did in the first session, then we might be starting to get frustrated with the game.

By: LS

LS — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:39:33 +0000

I assume you mean the fight against Grendel, since Beowulf is the hero! =P

I intend to leave a lot of this up to the GM. The game has a total of 10 levels at present, so something like 11-12 dungeons would allow characters to progress to the ‘end’ of the advancement, then play a few dungeons with all of their abilities. However, my intent is to create a world which has an essentially infinite amount of great monsters. Some of them might be related in some way (these 8 monsters are all helping to maintain a certain spell, or something like that) but play could continue forever.