Which RPGs best model real-world skill development?

[Mercurius]

I asked Qwen: if you use the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons and you scale it towards real-world realism of skill development, what is the highest level a fighter could reach?

Spoiler: Full answer

To answer this question, we need to consider how skill development in the real world compares to the progression system in Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (D&D 5e). In D&D 5e, characters advance through levels by gaining experience points (XP), which are earned primarily through combat encounters and completing objectives. Each level represents an increase in power, skill, and capability.


In the real world, skill development follows a slower, more gradual process influenced by factors like practice, learning, innate talent, and time. While D&D is inherently fantastical and not meant to mirror reality perfectly, we can attempt to scale its progression system toward a more realistic framework of skill development.

---

Step 1: Understanding Fighter Progression in D&D 5e​

In D&D 5e, a fighter starts at Level 1 with basic combat skills and improves as they gain levels. By Level 20, the highest achievable level in the system, a fighter becomes a near-mythical warrior capable of extraordinary feats, such as making multiple attacks per round, wielding legendary weapons, and surviving incredible amounts of punishment.


Key milestones for fighters include:

• Levels 1–4 : Novice to competent warrior, skilled but limited.
• Levels 5–10 : Seasoned veteran, capable of significant martial prowess.
• Levels 11–16 : Master-level fighter, demonstrating superhuman abilities.
• Levels 17–20 : Legendary hero, approaching demigod-like combat capabilities.

Each level represents roughly 1,000–30,000 hours of training and experience, depending on how you interpret the XP thresholds. For example, reaching Level 20 requires about 355,000 XP, which could represent decades or even centuries of dedicated effort in a more realistic framework.

---

Step 2: Scaling Toward Real-World Realism​

In the real world, achieving mastery in any skill takes years of deliberate practice. Research suggests that it takes approximately 10,000 hours of focused training to become an expert in a given field (the "10,000-hour rule" popularized by Malcolm Gladwell). However, combat and martial arts are particularly complex skills that require not only physical conditioning but also mental acuity, tactical knowledge, and emotional resilience.


Let’s break this down:

1. Novice (Level 1–2) : A beginner might take 1–2 years of consistent training to develop basic combat skills.
2. Competent Warrior (Level 3–5) : Achieving proficiency comparable to a professional soldier or seasoned martial artist might take 5–10 years of intense practice.
3. Master (Level 6–10) : Reaching the level of a true master, such as a renowned historical swordsman or elite military operative, might require 15–25 years of dedication.
4. Legendary (Level 11+) : Beyond this point, the fighter's abilities begin to exceed what is realistically possible in the real world. Superhuman reflexes, stamina, and tactical genius are hallmarks of these levels.

---

Step 3: Estimating the Highest Realistic Level​

Given the constraints of human physiology, lifespan, and the time required for skill development, we can estimate the highest realistic level for a fighter based on real-world parameters:

1. Physical Limitations : Humans have finite potential due to biological constraints. Even with peak conditioning, there are limits to strength, speed, and endurance.
2. Lifespan : Assuming an average human lifespan of 70–80 years, and dedicating most of one’s life to training, a realistic cap would be around 50–60 years of active practice.
3. Skill Mastery Timeline : If we assume 10,000 hours for mastery in a single aspect of combat (e.g., swordsmanship), and considering the breadth of skills a D&D fighter must master (weapons, armor, tactics, survival, etc.), achieving full expertise might take 50,000–100,000 hours.

Using these estimates:

• A realistic "master" level in D&D terms might correspond to Level 8–10 . This represents someone who has spent 20–30 years honing their craft and achieved extraordinary but still plausible abilities.
• Levels beyond 10 begin to stretch realism, as they involve superhuman feats like dodging arrows, striking multiple times per second, or shrugging off mortal wounds.

---

Final Answer​

If D&D 5e were scaled toward real-world realism of skill development, the highest level a fighter could plausibly reach would be around Level 8–10 , assuming a lifetime of dedicated training and peak physical condition. Beyond this point, the abilities granted by higher levels would exceed what is biologically or practically possible for a human being.

To me that sounds about right - that in the real world, D&D martial and non-magical stats would cap around 10th level. Anything above 5th level would represent a "master" level, or as Qwen said:

1. Novice (Level 1–2) : A beginner might take 1–2 years of consistent training to develop basic combat skills.
2. Competent Warrior (Level 3–5) : Achieving proficiency comparable to a professional soldier or seasoned martial artist might take 5–10 years of intense practice.
3. Master (Level 6–10) : Reaching the level of a true master, such as a renowned historical swordsman or elite military operative, might require 15–25 years of dedication.
4. Legendary (Level 11+) : Beyond this point, the fighter's abilities begin to exceed what is realistically possible in the real world. Superhuman reflexes, stamina, and tactical genius are hallmarks of these levels.

My only problem with the above is that I'd swap "Novice" for "Trained Warrior" and "Competent Warrior" for "Skilled Warrior." A level 1-2 fighter is not a "novice, and 3-5 is not merely "competent."

Presumably all the best fighters in Game of Thrones are 6-10th level. Someone like Barristan Selmy might have reached 10th level, though adjusted somewhat for aging (e.g. loss of STR, DEX, CON). Jaime Lannister and Oberyn Martell might have been 8th-9th level. Maybe Jon Snow ended up around 7th-8th level, but with high stats. Ser Arthur Dayne was probably 10th level with high stats.

Anyhow, my question is: Which RPGs best emulate real-world skill development? We can leave magic aside, but in terms of martial and non-magical capacities?

I would also suggest that most fantasy media are closer to real world skill development than D&D. Or rather, if the real world caps around 10th level, then most fantasy caps somewhere in the 10-15 range -- allowing for legendary capacities. It is only D&D and, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, that has advancement to 20th level (or its equivalent) - and of course Marvel goes beyond that (if "normal" superheroes cap around 20th level, epic and cosmic ones would go much higher).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think D&D is remotely going to be a good model for "real-world skill development", so I'm not sure why you used it in your worked example.

D&D's HP system is entirely at odds with anything real-world, because of the near-linear increase (and whatever view you have on it representing, there's nothing real-world that works like that).

Likewise 5E's Proficiency Bonus, if anything, scales too slowly and weakly, skill-wise, because it's a pretty small actual difference.

Further, your examples are not right - an "elite military operative" does not remotely take "15 years" of training. They take less than 5, often less than 3 for their combat training. You think a guy with 15 years of experience and training can, in real life, move faster and make more strikes in the same time than someone with 5 years? Very unlikely. The veteran probably got more tricks and more real-world experience, but those aren't likely to benefit him in close combat in most cases - they're more likely to be beneficial in planning operations, or anticipating what will happen next.

Also, you can't say "real world" and then refer to Game of Thrones a bunch - it's absolute fantasy - and that very much includes people like Sir Barristan Selmy. He is not a realistic or particularly plausible character, no matter how badass and cool he might be. So chuck that stuff out.

If you really want "modelling real world skill development", you're going to need something where skills develop very rapidly at first, and then taper off steeply, but with the ability to learn new techniques, which wasn't really linked to time or experience, merely those techniques being presented to you (and having some weeks or months to learn them). Almost nothing humans can do really takes more than few years to actually learn the vast majority, and the real skill gain after that tends to be small and to be more "meta".

I don't think any RPGs actually operate this way? But I could be wrong.

 

[dbm]

something where skills develop very rapidly at first, and then taper off steeply, but with the ability to learn new techniques, which wasn't really linked to time or experience, merely those techniques being presented to you (and having some weeks or months to learn them).

GURPS matches that description quite well. The bell curve means the early part of learning tends to be more impactful than later points in a skill (though high levels of skill do help you mitigate penalties), and increases also cost more as you add points of skill. There are techniques which are related to skills but cover specific combat tricks. Training is a thing, and there are even rules for skill advancement just through time spent training or practicing a skill.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think D&D is remotely going to be a good model for "real-world skill development", so I'm not sure why you used it in your worked example.

D&D's HP system is entirely at odds with anything real-world, because of the near-linear increase (and whatever view you have on it representing, there's nothing real-world that works like that).

Likewise 5E's Proficiency Bonus, if anything, scales too slowly and weakly, skill-wise, because it's a pretty small actual difference.

Further, your examples are not right - an "elite military operative" does not remotely take "15 years" of training. They take less than 5, often less than 3 for their combat training. You think a guy with 15 years of experience and training can, in real life, move faster and make more strikes in the same time than someone with 5 years? Very unlikely. The veteran probably got more tricks and more real-world experience, but those aren't likely to benefit him in close combat in most cases - they're more likely to be beneficial in planning operations, or anticipating what will happen next.

Also, you can't say "real world" and then refer to Game of Thrones a bunch - it's absolute fantasy - and that very much includes people like Sir Barristan Selmy. He is not a realistic or particularly plausible character, no matter how badass and cool he might be. So chuck that stuff out.

If you really want "modelling real world skill development", you're going to need something where skills develop very rapidly at first, and then taper off steeply, but with the ability to learn new techniques, which wasn't really linked to time or experience, merely those techniques being presented to you (and having some weeks or months to learn them). Almost nothing humans can do really takes more than few years to actually learn the vast majority, and the real skill gain after that tends to be small and to be more "meta".

I don't think any RPGs actually operate this way? But I could be wrong.

Hey, take it up with AI, not me. And of course D&D isn't "remotely good" for reasons you stated and others. But...we're playing What If, here, and I think Qwen's answer of level 8-10 is solid enough.

Game of Thrones is fantasy, but it is more realistic than D&D. As for Barristan Selmy, I believe he was 60 when Joffrey dismissed him, so early 60s when he died. If he took care of himself, he could still probably be a master warrior, even if not the same as he was when he was younger. EDIT: And I think greatly decreased stamina and increased fragility would have been a thing, which the D&D rules don't well account for. Maybe something like 10th level, but a decrease (or potential decrease) in stats for every round fought. Maybe -1 to all rolls per round, or a chance of Disadvantage.

Anyhow, it doesn't have to be either/or, black or white. In other words, lighten up, Francis

 

[Tonguez]

GURPS or BRP
GURPS models non linear resource investment to get better at something, has rules for training times and recognizes different learning speeds and talents.

BRP has its % system with improvement through skill use, then roll at session end to see if you actually learn anything new - so not everyone improves at the same rate and sometimes you can struggle and hit a plateau

 

[Reynard]

Anyhow, my question is: Which RPGs best emulate real-world skill development? We can leave magic aside, but in terms of martial and non-magical capacities?

Real world skill development is such acomplex, multifaceted thing, I am not sure I have ever seen a RPG that manages to capture it.

Let's use combat -- in this case, karate -- as an example. A "first level" or "novice" martial artist is a black belt. That is to say, they have completed their training. They are now able to actually develop their skills. But their is only one way to do that: using karate in fights (sport, life and death, or otherwise). You might gain muscle memory and endurance from constant training, but you will only actually gain skill in combat from being in combat.

The same goes for (to use my own profession) land surveying. You can learn the basics in a relatively short apprenticeship, but you only actually become a good surveyor by surveying -- setting up traverse, running loops, locating monuments, researching land records, mathing out boundaries, etc... And this thing -- any trade, really -- gets to the heart of the question of what "a" skill is. Is "land surveying" a single skill, or a collection of skills you use together to achieve a particular result?

Games like BRP and Dragonbane that let you make "did I improve rolls" for actually using skills are closest to modeling how skill development works in the real world, but are still so abstract as to be only slightly more "realistic" than gaining levels in D&D.

 

[Mercurius]

Real world skill development is such acomplex, multifaceted thing, I am not sure I have ever seen a RPG that manages to capture it.

Let's use combat -- in this case, karate -- as an example. A "first level" or "novice" martial artist is a black belt. That is to say, they have completed their training. They are now able to actually develop their skills. But their is only one way to do that: using karate in fights (sport, life and death, or otherwise). You might gain muscle memory and endurance from constant training, but you will only actually gain skill in combat from being in combat.

The same goes for (to use my own profession) land surveying. You can learn the basics in a relatively short apprenticeship, but you only actually become a good surveyor by surveying -- setting up traverse, running loops, locating monuments, researching land records, mathing out boundaries, etc... And this thing -- any trade, really -- gets to the heart of the question of what "a" skill is. Is "land surveying" a single skill, or a collection of skills you use together to achieve a particular result?

Games like BRP and Dragonbane that let you make "did I improve rolls" for actually using skills are closest to modeling how skill development works in the real world, but are still so abstract as to be only slightly more "realistic" than gaining levels in D&D.

Yeah, I thought of BRP and Dragonbane as the closest thing.

Using your example of karate, thankfully (I suppose!) in D&D, advancement mostly comes through combat - so in that way, it is realistic. On the other hand, I hear what you're saying - that there's almost two parallel tracks, one is training skills and the other is lived experience. Even in real-world sports, some athletes are better "on paper" than they are in the thick of play. We also see disappointing prodigies and over-achievers.

I'm guessing that Mr Gygax tried to include the "quick to proficiency, tiny increments beyond that" in his early XP charts, but of course counter-acted that by providing higher XP rewards for more powerful monsters and treasure.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm guessing that Mr Gygax tried to include the "quick to proficiency, tiny increments beyond that" in his early XP charts

I don't think he really did, I think D&D, conceptually, isn't that thought-through, and the OD&D XP charts aren't really like that imho. Which is unsurprising given they were essentially inventing a new form of game.

But certainly with 3rd edition, it gets much more extremely far from that. BAB is a straight linear climb, as are skills, HP increase in a linear way forever rather than slowing drastically at 10th, 4E is the same way. 5E is particularly weird in that skills don't mean as much as they used to mathematically, and in 5E 2014 you generally couldn't even gain new skills as you levelled up (barring a few classes/subclasses), unless you used Feats.

Games like BRP and Dragonbane that let you make "did I improve rolls" for actually using skills are closest to modeling how skill development works in the real world, but are still so abstract as to be only slightly more "realistic" than gaining levels in D&D.

The problem with BRP is that it doesn't model practice or steady usage, AFAIK, and you learn nothing from failure, only from success (which seems actively perverse). To increase it you then have to roll over it, but you don't even get to check if the roll failed.

Still it is a lot better than most RPGs, and it would be easy enough to change it so failing was what triggered the check to increase (and indeed it's been around so long I'd be surprised if it wasn't an optional rule in some version of BRP).

You might gain muscle memory and endurance from constant training, but you will only actually gain skill in combat from being in combat.

But what is "combat"? Is sparring combat? Semi-contact? Full-contact? Or is it only "in the wild" or "to the death" combat or similar? So I'm not sure there's a bright line there. And similarly, most skills don't really have that - it's more like practice and challenging situations for most skills, and you kind of need both to develop them.

I think one thing that's fairly random in game design too is how well the account for the sheer 0-60 a lot of people (especially younger people) can do with skills, and don't really account for people being "naturals" at skills either, nor necessarily differentiate between a skill you can be a "natural" at (mostly physical ones) or one that simply requires a lot of training because it is very complicated.

 

[overgeeked]

Anyhow, my question is: Which RPGs best emulate real-world skill development? We can leave magic aside, but in terms of martial and non-magical capacities?

Likely skill-based d100 systems that potentially increase your skills by 1-2% when you fail a check. Think Call of Cthulhu and BRP, with some mods. Fail a check, gain the possibility to increase a skill. Between sessions, roll against the skill again to increase it. On another fail you gain 1-2%. You learn more from failure than success and all that.

 

[Golden Bee]

Why ask AI when you're gonna ask the forum anyway?