An RPG without leveling

[Lumpy]

I think this has been discussed once or twice, but there hasn't been any topic on the subject yet.
So, how about an RPG without (or with a very small amount of) leveling. Where you define your character at the beggining, and play the exact same character for the entire game.
Sure, character advancement is a good concept, but it's used in every single RPG, and it has several flaws.
Mainly, it doesn't make sense that the player can advance in one year more than important characters have in their entire lifetimes. In party games, it's even worse - it would make sense that one person is especially talented and can advance fast, but 6 of them? Developers also feel that they have some sort of duty to give low level characters boring quests, and keep the interesting ones high-level.
It also creates problems for certain characters, such as diplomats. If a monster is one level above you, the combat will be a little harder, but you'll still succeed. But if a dialogue check is one level above, the enemies will attack your non-combat character, giving him no chance to succeed.
Thus, I don't understand why it has to be used in every RPG. Why can't there be a game where you create your character at the beggining, and play him that way for the entire game? The game could also allow the player to make an overpowered avatar or an underpowered one, both being interesting in their own ways. Would such a game be that unfun to play, that nobody has ever even attempted making one?

 

[MLMarkland]

I think something like that could work if you shifted the idea a bit and went for "advancement" not in terms of physical/magical/etc. power, but rather built the game around social/economic/political advancement.

So, while your characters statistics wouldn't change, your character wouldn't be a different person fundamentally in the end game, he or she would have developed a portfolio of assets (friends/enemies/reputation/influence/money/wisdom/etc/etc/) through the player's actions.

M

 

[Jabbapop]

adventure game lol

but seriously that's a great idea, which i can only see in real form as a gimped fps.

 

[Slylandro]

So, how about an RPG without (or with a very small amount of) leveling. Where you define your character at the beggining, and play the exact same character for the entire game.

Are you limiting inventory here too? (i.e. none of that +8 sword of massive hemorrhaging and super charisma boost).

 

[Globbi]

I think i played such game more than 10 years ago on amiga600, it was only demo and I would like to see the full game. There was no talking or puzzles but there was a team of a few players that were walking in a dungeon, fighting with monsters, no leveling or character developement but some skills of every char, f.e. dwarf could disarm traps, it was turn based.

A serious RPG without leveling would be really nice, but some developement should be there. There could be possible to learn some language or usage of an item. Levels always suck because you suddenly become stronger and able to do more quests just for killing one more rat. It could be done, but by who and when?

 

[Lumpy]

Inventory? No, of course not. You'd just have to find a reason why the player is in an environment unknown to him, and allow him to develop in any logical way - social standing, equipment, etc.
As for who and when - an indie developer who doesn't care about appealing to the brainless masses (which such a game would most likely not).

 

[damaged_drone]

advancement is the entire point of rpgs(and a major aspect of most genres). levels are a simplistic way of implementing it.

god i wish i could make an rpg.

 

[Lumpy]

Bullshit. Role-playing is the main aspect of RPGs. In a quality RPG, developing your personality should be much more important than developing skills and phat lewt. Torment is a good example of that.

 

[damaged_drone]

roleplaying a character who cannot learn or develop is retarded/impossible/pointless. same goes for setting.


fundamental.(if not actually the entire point)

i could care less about loot.

 

[Lumpy]

How about roleplaying a character who has already learnt, and who has some experience - thus actually being able to do something that the town guard can't handle.
You could have some development, like, say, from level 7 to 8 in key moments of the storyline, but nothing dramatical, like from level 1 to 20 in the course of one year.

 

[Jasede]

Bullshit. Role-playing is the main aspect of RPGs. In a quality RPG, developing your personality should be much more important than developing skills and phat lewt. Torment is a good example of that.

No, no, no it's not. VD thinks that's what makes an RPG, and so do you, but I beg to differ. If you really say that your fancy "Role-playing", i.e., LARPing is the most important thing in an RPG then you're ignoring all the the great RPGs that aren't fixed on that, like Wizardry 8, any Gothic or even Daggerfall. You don't develop an emotional character with depth. In a CRPG your character is mostly defined by his skills and what he can and can't do, hence the focus of older RPGs on number-crunching.

Fallout-style is not the only RPG-style there is and if you really think that a focus on developing skills makes for a less good RPG you should be hung, quartered and drawn.

Though I would welcome an RPG in the truest sense of the word, hence the AoD anticipation.

 

[Micmu]

Micmu agrees. Statistics to develop (expressed as primary attributes, skills, perks, special titles...) are a KEY element of any RPG.
Other goodies, like personality, non-linearity, etc. come in second.

 

[Kraszu]

Yes and the other way to go is to have no progress in no-combat skills but progress in combat ones.

Or having no creation but limit yourself whit in game actions. (sure minimalistic progress could be presented based on special skills). Let say that to learn thievery you would have to be in good correlation whit thieves groups.

It also creates problems for certain characters, such as diplomats. If a monster is one level above you, the combat will be a little harder, but you'll still succeed.

Then whit creating your character you could easy fuck it by giving yourself one point less then required for diplomacy. And you have no way to know on what will be good other then max before you played the game whit every stat.

 

[Kraszu]

No, no, no it's not. VD thinks that's what makes an RPG, and so do you, but I beg to differ. If you really say that your fancy "Role-playing", i.e., LARPing is the most important thing in an RPG then you're ignoring all the the great RPGs that aren't fixed on that, like Wizardry 8, any Gothic or even Daggerfall.

No LARPing is when you pretend something, not when you are limited whit game rules/mechanics.

You don't develop an emotional character with depth. In a CRPG your character is mostly defined by his skills and what he can and can't do, hence the focus of older RPGs on number-crunching.

Your correlation whit npc/guilds is also stats that limit you.

 

[Lumpy]

Bullshit. Role-playing is the main aspect of RPGs. In a quality RPG, developing your personality should be much more important than developing skills and phat lewt. Torment is a good example of that.

No, no, no it's not. VD thinks that's what makes an RPG, and so do you, but I beg to differ. If you really say that your fancy "Role-playing", i.e., LARPing is the most important thing in an RPG then you're ignoring all the the great RPGs that aren't fixed on that, like Wizardry 8, any Gothic or even Daggerfall. You don't develop an emotional character with depth. In a CRPG your character is mostly defined by his skills and what he can and can't do, hence the focus of older RPGs on number-crunching.

Fallout-style is not the only RPG-style there is and if you really think that a focus on developing skills makes for a less good RPG you should be hung, quartered and drawn.

Though I would welcome an RPG in the truest sense of the word, hence the AoD anticipation.

Just because I think it makes a less quality RPG doesn't mean it can't still be a good one, just a different kind.
Daggerfall does a good job in allowing a great amount of freedom in defining your character ability-wise, and allowing different things to be done with different skills. Thus, it allowed good role-playing.
Gothic I allowed almost no freedom in defining your character, so I consider it a crappy RPG. A great action-adventure game, mind you - it was really enjoyable.
AoD, indeed, looks like the quintessential RPG right about now. We'll see how it turns out.

 

[Lumpy]

Yes and the other way to go is to have no progress in no-combat skills but progress in combat ones.

Or having no creation but limit yourself whit in game actions. (sure minimalistic progress could be presented based on special skills). Let say that to learn thievery you would have to be in good correlation whit thieves groups.

It also creates problems for certain characters, such as diplomats. If a monster is one level above you, the combat will be a little harder, but you'll still succeed.

Then whit creating your character you could easy fuck it by giving yourself one point less then required for diplomacy. And you have no way to know on what will be good other then max before you played the game whit every stat.

Limiting yourself with game actions sounds quite lame, and LARPish - the game should react based on your choices in character creation.
As for having one less point in persuasion - that probably means that you've spent some points elsewhere, allowing you to solve the problem in a different way.

 

[The_Pope]

I'd like to see one. It doesn't matter if it fits the genre requirements, because most RPGs suck. It's the few outliers like Planescape and Fallout that don't, and that's because they focus on things other than tedious grind. The usual RPG has the deep intellectual challenge of asteroids combined with the visceral thrills of microsoft excel. Complex branching story lines, interesting NPCs and/or entertaining combat are what elevate some RPGs above progress quest with a worse interface.

Same goes for every other genre. FPSs suck. They consist of a corridor containing things to click on. When people add other things to them, like squad tactics, RPG elements, challenging multiplayer and open ended level design they can be great. Micromanaging a build order three milliseconds faster than an opponent is hardly even a game, but RTSs with extra layers on top of that can be brilliant.

Good games are made when developers make good games rather than ticking off a genre checklist.

 

[kris]

Micmu agrees. Statistics to develop (expressed as primary attributes, skills, perks, special titles...) are a KEY element of any RPG.
Other goodies, like personality, non-linearity, etc. come in second.

You don't need to develop any statistics to be roleplaying. You can just have them kept as they are. In fact there are many examples of PnP roleplaying games wehre you can play non-developing characters from the gameworld (usually famous). Also, never did we say that we didn't roleplay just because none gained a level. in fact the advancement in level process was something I took less focus in for every year I roleplayed.

 

[Zomg]

Everything The_Pope and Lumpy have said is correct (infallible?).

The whole progression hook of RPG gameplay has already been snipped out and crossbred to more mainstream genres. It was never great or important, and the fact that it can be used as a bulk additive to any old shit game like an MMO should tell you that it was just empty calories to begin with.

 

[Claw]

Damn some of you people are stupid. In many PnP RPGs the skill/experience increases are meant to be tiny, often primary statistics are fixed and change through events in the gameworld rather than some intrinsic character development.
So I suppose they are bloody awful RPGs because you don't "level up" during an entire session, maybe even several?

Ultima VII didn't bloody need no levels. If you had started with a fully developed, magic-capable Avatar, that would have been great. I always go to the Forge of Virtues as soon as possible to max my stats anyway.
It's just inconceiveable that you'd think RPGs have nothing to offer but leveling and phat loot. What about writing your own story? What about interesting dialogues, quests with choices and consequences?

 

[taxacaria]

I remember Darklands [Microprose]
no level-up, the chars can learn and advance in some abilities, but not in stats.
levelling isn't missed here because of the awesome char creation system.

 

[elander_]

So, while your characters statistics wouldn't change, your character wouldn't be a different person fundamentally in the end game, he or she would have developed a portfolio of assets (friends/enemies/reputation/influence/money/wisdom/etc/etc/) through the player's actions.

Your talking about the most advanced aspects of role-playing however to have that doesn't mean you need to get rid of body/mind attributes or of a rolled background.

Also if a character goes from a weakling with 5 strength to a monster of 20 strength in a week why blaming stats? I was never able to raise my strength permanently more than 3 or 4 points in Fallout and the game uses a similar set of attributes than most other rpgs. Fallout was the most enjoyable rpg i have played.

It usual goes like this. If your rpg system as a use-based skill system then it's pointless to have levels. If it's a system where you distribute xp manually then it makes sense. Levels were used in Fallout to determine the number of perks a char cloud have but i think it would have worked the same without levels if they associated perk adds to skill level instead.

Classes are evil.

 

[Kraszu]

But in Fallout you go from close to 0 to expert in shooting/fighting/science/whoever in less then year.

 

[Norfleet]

Well, in the case of skills like "shooting", I can very much see that happening in a year...especially a year spent shooting at people who are shooting at YOU. Two sorts of things usually happen to people in such situations in real life: They either get very, very good at it, or they get very, very dead. You'd be surprised how fast people can pick up on something like that when the stakes are high enough. Admittedly, there's a strong selective pressure against those who can't.

 

[serch]

In rpgs, in which the success of players' actions are determined through the filter of his/her character abilities, incrementing the former is a way of rewarding the player. At the same time is a designing instrument that serves to 'unblock' story content. So, basically, you need a good substitute for these functions as satisfactory as personal powah.