An RPG without leveling

[SkeleTony]

Skippy, RPGS ARE tactical simulation games or a specific type of said genre. They are a sub-genre of war/strategy games. Instead of a player controlling and making decisions about how to use the cavalry or archers in whatever scenario(in war games where one generally handles large armies composed of many smaller squads), the player in RPGs is dealing with a single squad which can be from one character(composed of several "smaller" attributes) or a handful of characters.

But even a game with NO COMBAT, where "good" and "evil" are meaningless terms(or at least only subjective evaluations of behavior) and most 'conflict' takes toe form of political debate or some such, is STILL a role-playing game IF the game mechanics involve developing characters by quantified attributes, becoming more proficient with experience.

I'm confused. If a genre (RPG) is a sub-genre of war/strategy games, doesn't that imply, rather strongly, that combat is a requisite? When I play a war game, I'm kind of expecting some type of combat.

And most(nearly all?) rpgs DO feature a lot of combat as a result but my point was that strategy games(remember, I never said "war games". I said "war/stra4tegy games") can be designed around any sort of conflict-resolution dynamic. If a new tabletop strategy game were developed about world conquest sans combat of any kind(re: using diplomacy, economics, politics etc.) and it was successful then it would first be called a "new breed of 'war game'!' and would probably spawn a new sub-genre of strategy/war games.
Not unlike how D&D broke from the macroscopic mold of traditional war games and started a new sub-genre of role playing games.

Anyway, I always thought of levelling as a quick and easy measure of a character's abilities. For instance, we all know a level 10 character is going to be more powerful than a level 1 character. How much more powerful is dependent on the system. Levels generally give an indication of the task difficulty a character can handle (usually in the form of combat, but its certainly possible in other places as well). Trying to gauge the 'power' of a level-less character, who has 30 skills of various levels, isn' quite as cut and dry. Its also much more difficult to design around.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see a good level-less system. Perhaps the bulk of a character's abilities would be determined at character generation. For instance, adventuring could kind of interrupt their lives at some point. The types and levels of skills the character has would be whatever they had managed to gain up until that event. The player could decide to have a relatively young, inexperienced hero, or play as someone who is much older, but with a broader range of skills. Of course, age would be a factor, and as the character aged, their physical attributes would start declining. Once they start adventuring, the character would still evolve, but much slower, as the time they adventure, relative to their 'normal' life, is probably much shorter. However, they are also usually under much greater pressure to learn quickly, so some growth would still occur.

Agreed. it is all in how leveling is implemented. RuneQuest had no levels and adventures were designed instead for 'Characters of 'X' weapon skills'(where 'X' was a score that could only be reasonably expected to have come about through so much prior adventuring) and in the end it was not any more or less clunky than D&D's 'levels' surprisingly enough. Jagged Alliance 2 had an interesting take in that characters gained levels by reaching certain scores in their skills/abilities as a whole and levels represented more of a character's veteran cunning and experience in the sense of being able to spot a concealed trip wire(whereas a 'rookie' would have stumbled right over it and been blown to bits), rather than representing earned experience which the PC would spend on improving skills arbitrarily(skills improved with use in JA2, like RQ)

 

[SkeleTony]

Jagged Alliance 2 handles level in a fairly unusual manner, and is the only game I can remember playing that I thought had it 'right', or at least not annoyingly silly. Level in there is just a derived stat not especially more or less character-defining than any other. The game has pretty much the usual skills-improve-with-use problems elsewhere (explosives...ugh), but its version of level is one I can swallow fairly happily.

Holy IRONY Batman!

@SkeleTony: If you're saying that character progression is necessary (for an RPG, I think, not for a worthwhile game in general?), how does that follow from your claim that RPGs are squad level tactical simulations?

Because like I said...suib-genre. If RPGs did not do anything different then there would be no genre we call "role playing games". We would just be playing Advanced Sqaud leader and such.

I guess JA2 is more or less a quintessential RPG by your standards,

I would not say "quintessential"(that seems to imply to me a game for which there is little room for improvement or a perfect example of an ideal RPG or soem such) but it IS a very good CRPG.

and I don't see how it'd have much impact on the way that played if characters' skills didn't improve at all.

It would have a dramatic effect for me. I would probably not bother playing an isometric action game as you describe above(or at least would not enjoy it so much) but as a RPG with character progression, it is great.

The fact characters have different skill levels and specializations matters, but most of them won't improve a great deal at much other than ranged accuracy unless you're going out of your way to see that they do, an undertaking you might find amusing for its own sake (Flo leading on kill-count for the win), but certainly not necessary, or even enormously beneficial, if you just want to get to the credits.

Well if my goal were to just see credits at the end of games then I would probably be playing games that were easiest/fastest to complete rather than games of a specific type of game play.

I'd be near the head of the queue for a zero-progression RPG-like, regardless of whether it's marketed as an RPG without stat growth or adventure game with RPG character elements. I think this is mainly just an (over?)reaction to most existing games' soul-crushing reliance on lab-rat addiction mechanics, though. Realistically, I'd probably be equally satisfied with a system that simply kept character progression within more plausible bounds.

Fair enough. I don't mind the more typical loot/experience incentives myself. In fact I enjoy them no matter how many times I see them but I am all for innovation within the genre.

DnD and rule sets that borrow heavily from it are the biggest offenders, here. If anyone can link to this old discussion of HP where it was universally agreed to be an acceptable abstraction (or just remember roughly when it happened so I can narrow a search), I'd be interested to read it. I'm aware of at least the gist of that argument, but have never been convinced by it, especially given that most of the things HP allegedly 'abstracts' have their own separate stat checks.

D&D was absolutely horrible and HP do not by any stretch make for a reasonable abstraction. For starters there is what I call the 'fireball problem' wherein a level 10 fighter, wearing a ring of fire resistance is standing next to a level 20 wizard and both are hit with a massive fireball. The wizard loses 85% of his HP while the fighter loses about 50% of his own. If HP represents physical ability to take punishment as well as 'luck'/karma etc. then who is more burnt? Could the wizard have simply had all of his "luck" incinerated but be physically unscathed? And why do each of them still operate(in terms of performing actions) as if they were not damaged by anything? And what if the Wizard made his "saving throw" and therefore only took half damage? Does that mean that he lost NO 'luck' but DID get physically burned a bit by the flames while the fighter had all of his luck burned up but is otherwise no worse for wear?

I tolerate this in CRPGs because, IMO even a BAD RPG is preferable to a GOOD non-rpg but I would sure like to see developers think more along the lines of making deadly combat relatively rare or easily circumventable by smart players rather than so much reliance on "Get more HP then fight more deadly monsters" dynamic.

 

[SkeleTony]

Well it's not logical getting better at making poison for swinging a dagger. Or like Fallout you kill some radscorps and level up and spend your points on speech skill. How does killing critters with a gun translate into being better at convincing people?

JA2 and Darklands use the system that the skills you actually use increase. Darklands goes a step further in that you can learn even if you fail your skill check. "That hurt! I won't try that next time!".

But just like classes I see leveling as a holdover from the AD&D days. It's not neccesary for a CRPG or PnP. I hate to sound like a broken record but GDW's system of starting with experienced characters worked extremely well. You didn't have to worry about whoring every possible XP and could instead focus on playing the game and your character.

RuneQuest used a system where the player character started at a certain age then randomly determined the occupation of his parents which he would ahve been trained/apprenticed in. Then characters subtracted the age they started learning that profession from the age in which they begin their adventuring careers to come up with a number of years they were trained as...(warriors, shamans, thieves, blacksmithes etc.). Starting characters then gained skill points according to the occupation they were trained in multiplied by the number of years they were trained in that occupation.

For example someone who was trained as a shaman's assistant from the time he was 16 until his 'starting age'(as an adventurer) of 23 would have the skill multipliers for first aid x3 and plant lore x3 and a one handed weapon of his choice x1, multiplied by 7 years of training he received(I am leaving a lot of details out for brevity's sake). I believe(IIRC) the CRPG Darklands was heavily inspired by RQ in this regard(RQ first appeared in 1977 or so).

 

[galsiah]

There are choices in Morrowind/Oblivion. They don't define character (in any non LARP sense) where they are predictably lacking in significant consequence...

I disagree...
For example... Choosing either "Truth: Yes" or "Lie: Yes" defines your character more, but doesn't have any consequence in the game, since both end up with the same result.

A couple of points:
First I said "predictably". So long as the player thinks the choice might have significant consequence, then it defines him. Early choices in Morrowind/Oblivion are more significant to the player, since he's still not aware that none of them will make any difference. [N.B. In PS:T, telling the truth / lying can affect alignment, which has game world consequences. The truth/lie option is more than cosmetic, and the player knows this. I'd argue that it should (ideally) always make some difference at least some of the time (e.g. to future dialogue options, future dialogue interpretation...)]

Later choices in MW/OB (where lack of meaningful consequence is entirely predictable) are only significant in a LARP sense. Telling someone "I'm a communist" (truth)/(lie) when you're 100% sure that'll have absolutely no effect on the game world, only defines anything if you're LARPing. Of course in any good game, the player should never have that certainty, so the choice would always define (and always have potential consequence, from the player's point of view).

I'm not saying that the player ought not to have an idea of his character beyond stats etc. - just that the game should support this idea and make it meaningful. Where the player is certain a choice will have no consequences (of any kind), it's not a meaningful choice [or rather it's no more meaningful than a choice he makes in his head. The player can make choices of no direct significance in his head - those he makes in game ought to do better than that, and at least appear to have possible consequences].
Any game allows roleplaying / character definition; an RPG ought to support it non-trivially.

On the other hand, choosing either "Truth: Yes" or "Lie: No" have greater consequences, because the NPC might turn hostile on one answer and friendly on another. On the other hand, they don't define your character as much, since both mean that your character is a communist.

They don't define your character as a communist or not, but they do as e.g. honest/dishonest/brave/cowardly/guarded.... Any significant choice defines your character as "The type of guy that chooses to do that". Where each choice leads to different (potential) implications, the choice made always says a lot about the character - regardless of whether it can be described with a one word label.

And there are almost no choices in either MW or OB, although those in Morrowind did have some consequences.

There are loads - it's merely the lack of consequence that makes you overlook most of them (quite rightly, since these are meaningless). A choice doesn't have to be a dialogue option - action is choice, so long as there's more than one possible course of action.

 

[elander_]

Here's a dumb idea, what if you role-play a character that is progressively decaying until he reaches point zero. Usually you role-play games where you become a god like character and savior of the world striving to become better and more powerful. In this game you start as a genius and influential person and will slowly decaying striving to learn and live as much as you can to stop this process. Would this be an rpg?

The need for characters to become always better imposes some restraints on role-playing and we get always the same cliche plots and endings. For the writer it becomes a chalenge to defeat the narrative monotony imposed by this scheme and create truly unique quests and plots.

 

[Mr Happy]

So what is decaying? His health? stats? social position? mind? Do you have any control over who you are at the beginning? Details man.

Actually, an RPG in which you are descending slowy but surely into insanity would be quite ballin.

 

[elander_]

Insanity for example and later at the end health condition and getting the police after our insane selfs. Just a crazy idea.

 

[galsiah]

Here's a dumb idea, what if you role-play a character that is progressively decaying until he reaches point zero.

Yeah - I thought about this a while ago. It has interesting possibilities.
It naturally increases the challenge of similar situations (as you'd expect in most games), rather than decreasing the challenge with time (even though the player is likely better at the game). It could make for interesting challenges in known areas - once your health/abilities degrade, a previously trivial task could require a great deal of thought and planning.
It's also a natural way to provide a time-limit, if that's desired.

In some ways it'd give a nice closure to the story - rather than becoming god-like, or getting some trite twist at the end and dying, you'd be well aware that you were doomed from the outset. This could lend quite a bit of realism to the situation: in most RPGs, characters enter life/death situations as a matter of course, even though no real person would in their shoes; in a game where the PC's death is assured from the outset, there's every reason to expect even a real person to go down fearlessly. (he might even go to EXTREME lengths )

It's also pretty novel - which isn't to say anyone would buy it.

 

[dagorkan]

Yeah, you were a powerful person but you're dying of a disease or have been cursed by a great sorceror (fantasy setting) or radioactively poisoned/have a parasitical brain implant (sci-fi/apocalyptic). You have an important task to complete before you die (protect someone/uncover a plot/deliver a crucial message/kill the evil master) and are expected to cannibalize yourself to do it. Need to balance sacrifice/risk to yourself with living long enough to complete the objective. That would be refreshing indeed.

And would make a good story... I am just sick of these RPGs where you're expected to play an egotistic mercenary schizoid sociopath, with no friends, no real goals or contrete values whose only ambition in life apparently is to pile up gold and 'lewt'.

 

[Xi]

The overarching goal is not the same as the immediate goal. If you have no reward for combat, it becomes just an obstacle. I remember thinking in every bl combat (When the fuck will this be over?) and that was long before the sewers were reached.

In BG you got an experience award for unlocking traps. Which makes finding traps something that was more tolerable. Same for finding spells. I thought it was a very good touch to have these elements. By contract there were a multitude of traps in icewind dale Ii and they were a huge fucking bore. I would simply walk people through them to trigger them, rest, etc. etc. Just a useless pain in the ass.

Especially since they are always in the same place if you reload. A shitty feature of a 'living' world is that it is pretty static, whereas if you had overland map encounters at random (not just combats, necessarily) and fucked something up then reloading means you don't get the encounter at all and would take it more seriously.

So in short, again youa re getting away from rpggoodness and into retardoland arcade badness. And yes, this is a stupid thread, and no there is no good discussion here.

How retarded must one be to write such a gigantic amount of pathetic bull. You basicly sound like a stupid 12 year old ADHD WoW playing kiddie, who can't engage into any gameplay activity without having the prospect of getting an immidiate "reward" in forms of XP or ph4t l00t for it.

Rewards are probably the most important factor of any game. Seriously, why even play it if it offers nothing in the way of rewards for your time. This would even apply to real life - which explains why people try to better themselves through education/practice. No one would even care if it wasn't rewarding. So, to manage a tedious element, such as frequent combat scenarios, the level/stat/gear system does make sense. I think Jim Kata is dead on actually.

The more a game rewards, such as through leveling/stat gain/gear, or through story experience, reputation, faction, etc, the better off your game will be. You could probably argue that you only want to offer a final reward of completion, but I think this would be a bad gameplay design.

You have to keep people interested, and stats/leveling/gear are great ways to do that. Arguing that people are stupid if they require small frequent rewards is a pretty bad argument. It's the nature of the industry right now, why even make a game if it wasn't accessible to enough people? So, you have to do things that appeal to broad audiences. The rewards system is probably the #1 best way to do that considering the success of Diablo 2 and WoW - which are almost 100% reward based games. While it may not be important for roleplaying, outside of your characters essential wants/needs, it is HUGELY important for a RP "Game".

 

[dagorkan]

Rewards sure but this should not mostly be provided by brute character power. This is what 100% of RPGs do and why they suck. Time to try something new. Write a good, interesting story (PST style or maybe Arcanum) and reward the player by plot progression and game experience. Some character power increase is necessary but it is retarded to think that is the only worthwhile reward.

If you don't care about the story go buy the D&D Monsters' Manual and you can roll up random battles and masturbate over level-up options all you want. It's cheaper and you don't need a computer.

 

[Xi]

Rewards sure but this should not mostly be provided by brute character power. This is what 100% of RPGs do and why they suck. Time to try something new. Write a good, interesting story (PST style or maybe Arcanum) and reward the player by plot progression and game experience. Some character power increase is necessary but it is retarded to think that is the only worthwhile reward.

There are numerous ways to reward the player. The story is one way. The "Gaming Experience" will be a direct reflection of how the game rewards the player as a whole. The more reward systems you offer, the more the player will potentially enjoy the "game". As far as enjoying the aspects of role playing, well that's a hard thing to build into your game. It's really hit or miss with almost no gray area. So, you have to have a lot of different gaming mechanics to help the player enjoy the different aspects of the game until they are forced to make another choice altering the path of the game through consequence. Otherwise, you would have a hard time offering enough different meaningful choices throughout the game to keep the player interested.

I can see what you are saying though. Why have the most focus on the stats/leveling/combat elements? Well, it's probably the most dynamic way to allow a player to actually customize and have some type of "Choice" and "Consequence" through character design. Yes, you can offer rewards through choice/consequence with a branching story. Still, the decisions someone makes, based on the pros/cons of the character's skills and personality, directly alter the game experience. The character's stats will allow the player to enjoy the utility of their character based on the choices of character design/improvements during the game. A pure RP experience probably wouldn't need levels/stats, but it would be less of a game without them.

Edit: Had to make a lot of edits, lol.

 

[LCJr.]

I can see what you are saying though. Why have the most focus on these elements? Well, it's probably the most dynamic way, which gives the illusion of control, to allow a player to actually customize and have some type of "Choice" and "Consequence" through character design. Yes, you can offer choice/consequence through a branching story, where the decisions someone makes, based on the pros/cons of the character's skills and personality, directly alter the game experience. Overall it's still a great way to help the player define his/her character.

Leveling is the easy way out for developers. Just like having most of the supposed challenge consist of an endless number of combats. It' far easier to do a character system and combat than coming up with inventive quests with multiple solutions/failures and the consequence/story arc for each choice.

 

[Xi]

Leveling is the easy way out for developers. Just like having most of the supposed challenge consist of an endless number of combats. It' far easier to do a character system and combat than coming up with inventive quests with multiple solutions/failures and the consequence/story arc for each choice.

That's probably the truth of it actually. Creating a very deeply alterable branching story where every choice leads the game in 20 different directions with infinite endings is fucking hard. This is why video games focused so much on Stats/Leveling when they adopted Roleplaying from the PnP experience. Stats/leveling is far more approachable without a DM who can lead the story in any direction his/her mind can create.

Edit: Also, it seems like most games are about what happens in between each potential story choice. It's the whole "It's the journey that's important, not the destination" saying. Which is probably why developers spend so much time creating combat systems, leveling, character dressing, etc. It seems like roleplaying is all abotu "playing the story" while everything else is simply "playing the game". It's hard to create a highly branched story that can remain interesting. So generally the RPGs make the major story roleplaying choices for us. There's very little roleplaying choice with LOTS of "playing the game" inbetween as the final result.

 

[The_Pope]

Yeah - I thought about this a while ago. It has interesting possibilities.
It naturally increases the challenge of similar situations (as you'd expect in most games), rather than decreasing the challenge with time (even though the player is likely better at the game). It could make for interesting challenges in known areas - once your health/abilities degrade, a previously trivial task could require a great deal of thought and planning.
It's also a natural way to provide a time-limit, if that's desired.

In some ways it'd give a nice closure to the story - rather than becoming god-like, or getting some trite twist at the end and dying, you'd be well aware that you were doomed from the outset. This could lend quite a bit of realism to the situation: in most RPGs, characters enter life/death situations as a matter of course, even though no real person would in their shoes; in a game where the PC's death is assured from the outset, there's every reason to expect even a real person to go down fearlessly. (he might even go to EXTREME lengths )

It's also pretty novel - which isn't to say anyone would buy it.

I'd say it would do pretty well - badass with nothing to lose is probably #1 on the list of favourite action heroes.

 

[ESF assasin]

An RPG without leveling? Unreal tournament.

 

[galsiah]

...In BG you got an experience award for unlocking traps. Which makes finding traps something that was more tolerable...

...I think Jim Kata is dead on actually.

:D - I almost thought you were serious up to that point.

Any thoughts on this game design?:
The player picks up a book, takes a knife and slowly flays his left forearm for 30 seconds. Then he gets to read a page. He flays, reads, flays, reads and so on.

I'm thinking that the flaying part might be tedious/painful, so this is better right?
The player picks up a book, and before reading each page, takes a knife and slowly flays his left forearm for (30 - level) seconds. After each flaying he gains 100 xp. After each 1000xp, he gains a level.

This is, of course, an improvement - the tedious/painful aspect is compensated by a reward. The reward is really something for the player to look forward to: he's higher level, so the tedious/painful aspect is over more quickly in future. In fact, after 300 pages, the player doesn't need to flay his left forearm at all!!

For a while I was thinking that either getting rid of the flaying, or replacing it with something fun or interesting might be a good idea. It's ok now though, since I've got the above reward system. Personally I think it's great.
Thoughts?

 

[JarlFrank]

Why would the flaying give you XP while reading a book?
It would make more sense if it was some kind of magic ritual or something, but having to flay your arm with a knife while reading a book to get XP sounds a bit unlogical to me.

 

[Xi]

...In BG you got an experience award for unlocking traps. Which makes finding traps something that was more tolerable...

...I think Jim Kata is dead on actually.

:D - I almost thought you were serious up to that point.

Any thoughts on this game design?:
The player picks up a book, takes a knife and slowly flays his left forearm for 30 seconds. Then he gets to read a page. He flays, reads, flays, reads and so on.

I'm thinking that the flaying part might be tedious/painful, so this is better right?
The player picks up a book, and before reading each page, takes a knife and slowly flays his left forearm for (30 - level) seconds. After each flaying he gains 100 xp. After each 1000xp, he gains a level.

This is, of course, an improvement - the tedious/painful aspect is compensated by a reward. The reward is really something for the player to look forward to: he's higher level, so the tedious/painful aspect is over more quickly in future. In fact, after 300 pages, the player doesn't need to flay his left forearm at all!!

For a while I was thinking that either getting rid of the flaying, or replacing it with something fun or interesting might be a good idea. It's ok now though, since I've got the above reward system. Personally I think it's great.
Thoughts?

Nice way to take it out of context. Seriously, you can make anything look bad, but what you haven't done is offer something that looks better. Why not offer some type of solution? People like progressive reward systems. I see nothing wrong with it. As for flaying your arms pointlessly for reward, people kill kids in fallout for the pointless pleasure. It's all perspective and taste, where one is not necessarily better then the other, yet one offers a progressive reward while the other a sick moment of twisted satisfaction. I fail to see the difference so long as the player is enjoying the experience.

 

[Kraszu]

Nice way to take it out of context. Seriously, you can make anything look bad, but what you haven't done is offer something that looks better. Why not offer some type of solution? People like progressive reward systems. I see nothing wrong with it.

Depends haw it is done, if the differences between levels is very big in raw power then we end up whit games that are ridiculous easy near end or close to impossible depend on haw much you grind. I like it to be done more based on guilds that can give you access to weapons/armors (they don't sell best staff to non member or for much bigger price, and give you some basic equipment), and teachers, now from quest you should have enough to learn most important skills for your character (not necessary as they are shown option to you, and preferably not) and have enough money to buy mediocre equipment (there should no very big differences between mediocre and best, for example you got basic armor when you are accepted by guild you can go to blacksmith and he can improve it). For rest of lp you could learn addition things that help you but not unbalance game compliantly like alchemy, new fighting stale.

 

[galsiah]

As for flaying your arms pointlessly for reward, people kill kids in fallout for the pointless pleasure.

To be clear, my above game design isn't for a computer game - it's a game you play with a book and a knife. The flaying should obviously be removed (in fact most people play the book-reading game this way), just as combat/trap finding etc., should obviously be removed if they are simply tiresome.
Adding a reward system should always be icing on the cake, not polish on a turd.

Seriously, you can make anything look bad, but what you haven't done is offer something that looks better.

Have you read the thread? In this case (Bryce was talking about traps that are a "huge fucking bore"), the clear solution is very simple: remove them from the game. That's an improvement. Making traps inherently interesting would also work. Adding a reward for doing something annoying is not a solution. It merely masks the problem (for some players).

Why not offer some type of solution?

Since you missed it the first time:

I'm afraid you're being rather idiotic here Bryce.
Incentivizing activities which aren't entertaining is generally bad design, in any game.
Incentivizing activities which are entertaining is generally good design (all else being equal), in any game.

If trap handling/combat, or any activity, are dull without rewards, then they should be improved to the point that they're interesting, scrapped entirely, or made a passive/instant action which doesn't get in the way of more interesting gameplay.

Min-maxing and grinding are not "RPG goodness" - they are symptoms of design flaws (in any game not intended as a spreadsheet sim).

Any min-maxing there is, ought to be based primarily on qualitative, game world concepts (ideas that are interesting, and connect the player to the game world), rather than direct numeric optimization (ideas that are dull, and connect him with his inner autistic spreadsheet tweaker).

People like progressive reward systems. I see nothing wrong with it.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with it.
There's something wrong with it when:
It's used to paper over the cracks of poor design (e.g. adding rewards to otherwise dull game mechanics).
It's used unthinkingly, without consideration for its merits in the context of the game you're making.
It's done badly (see many games), or FUBAR (see e.g. Morrowind/Oblivion).
It's added "because people like it", rather than "because people will be more entertained by the game as a whole". [People like Tetris too - that's no reason to add it to a game, unless it makes the game more entertaining when taken as a whole.]

I'm not against progression. I'm against the automatic, unthinking use of any element - particularly when it's being used to mask crap design.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Ugh, there is so much I want to reply to, but I feel obliged to answer SkeleTony first. Anyway, what you write about insults and the like, you're mostly correct. There is a tradition to flame just a bit more than necessary on this forum. Se the TFTC vs Bryce at the start of this thread. I'm just glad I refrained from further flaming (the otherwise obligatory idiot/moron) in my point by point reply. After all, you turned out to be a bright guy, albeit with some silly opinions.

And you were calling ME "stupid" kiddo?

No gramps, I weren't.

Yeah kiddo, you were. At least man-up and admit it because it is right above in black and white. Not important though. We all make mistakes and I am over it.

Just to do away with the nitpicking, as you say, no I weren't. See my later reply on the subject. I explained what was meant with associating you with Bryce, that's all. It was a flame bait, I'll admit, but I did not call you stupid. Reread it and see. This was, by the way, some of the reason for my comments about reading comprehension and all that. So, I won't bother replying to that stuff. Oh, and what's up with all the spaces between your quotes? No need to make a long reply even longer.

Reading a book is an activity where one picks up a primarily textual piece and reads what someone else has written, with no interaction on the reader's part in how the story unfolds.

No shit.

Context man...something we both could work on I think.

Not sure I'm following you on this one. What I wrote was, in my opinion, warranted. Nice to see I've grown to a man, though.

RPGs are a genre of INTERACTIVE GAMES(not books)...

Hello Captain Obvious! What are you trying to prove?

That the "rewards" of a RPG should not be expected to be identical to those of reading a book(as per your original 'WTF? I don't need stats/leveling to enjoy a book!?' argument).

that entail entirely different "rewards"(in addition to seeing a story unfold in most cases).

This is the exact matter at hand. Why are they different? Do they have to be different? This is what we are discussing. Wake up.

Wide awake...and yes, they DO have to be different because otherwise you would not have RPGs AND books...just books(or RPGS).

This is pure bullshit, you do see that, don't you? First off, I didn't mean that the rewards should be identical to books, and that should be pretty obvious too. And the second: are you saying we need loot as reward, and stat based character progression in RPGs, because otherwise the RPG would become a book? (A bit of a straw man, I know, but there are other ways than this to keep the player motivated, for crying out loud.)

If you enjoy reading a book more than playing a RPG then go read a book!

Now plaese point me to where I say that I enjoy reading books more than playing RPGs.

It was implied in your argument that RPGs should entail the same attributes/rewards of books/adventure games but in any case you will notice that nowhere did I SAY any such thing. I ASKED "If you enjoy reading a book more than playing a RPG...".

So long as we are being nitpicky and all...

No, it was implied that RPGs should get more cues from books in regard of motivating the player. It was a reply to those who kept arguing that phat lewt is the only good way to keep a player motivated. Also in the light of further explanation of my reasoning behind that post, in the reply you are quoting, there should be no need for making that point at all. And while on the topic of implying things, you asked me a question, I asked for the grounds for that question. No nitpicking needed.

And if game developers actually rose to the level of quality literature, I'd probably spend more time playing their games.

Well, that's a subjective thing I guess. For me personally that does not make much sense. It is kind of like saying "Until superhero comic-books are as well written as Dostyevski's works, i won't be looking at any of them.". On the surface, to some, this might seem rational but it ignores the fact that people look at and read superhero comics for much different reasons than they read The Brothers Karamazov(i.e. artwork, popcorn entertainment, good literature of an entirely different genre etc.).

You were talking about straw men?

And I am, in fact, reading a book. You should too, you'd hopefully pick up some reading comprehension, which obviously is suffering for the time being.

Oh boy! A pissing contest! We can now switch the discussion to who reads more of what quality of book every day/week! YAY!
Okay I will go first. I am just now reading Minds, Brains and Computers: The Foundations of Cognitive Thinking. Before that I read Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan and at some point in the next week I will start reading this copy of The Age of Voltaire by Will and Ariel Durant.
Fairly typical stuff for me but every bit counts when trying desperately to raise my 'reading comprehension' stat(what a grind!).

Way ahead of you on the pissing contest-references, mister. See my edit of the post you are quoting.

Why play a RPG, notice that the rewards are nothing like being lead along a linear story and then complain about it not being a book?!?

Hmm, this is a tough one. Could it be that I happen to like playing RPGs? No, that clearly can't be the case, as I'm (zomg!) criticising the genre and come with suggestions on how it can be improved.

Straw man. No one was jumping on you for criticisng the genre

Yeah, you're right. It's a straw man. But seeing how good as you are to identify them, I suggest you go read the post I was replying to and look for some there.

(Hell, NO ONE in HISTORY criticizes this genre more than I do!).

You are sure of this?

What I was fantasizing about, was an open ended, non linear (look it up if you are unsure of the meaning),

I know full well what the term means but I would wager that most in here do not. Most people commonly mistake 'non-linear' to mean 'Having no over-arching plot or goal of any kind', SIMS-like gaming experience when this is not the case(as far as RPGs are concerned).

As I've admitted, those remarks of mine were silly. But why are you telling me what "most people" mistake non-linear to mean?

... quest based game. A game where story and characters will have the depth of the old adventure games, the game world would be open and free roaming as the Gothics and Elder Scrolls, but where the incentive to keep playing aren't to übering your characters abilities or collecting all the ancient artifacts. A game where they your main focus are to see the game world react to your actions, to see your actions have meaningful consequences, playing people and factions up against each other. To see the story evolve and have a solution. Story and choice aren't mutually exclusive, which Gothic III showed to a degree, it's just harder to do. Now I have yet to play an adventure game that offer me the same type of freedom Fallout, Arcanum, Gothic III or even The Elder Scrolls-series did. If you have played such an adventure game, please point me to it. I'd be overjoyed.

I know of none off-hand. But that is more a self-imposed restriction of developers of adventure games than it is a restriction imposed by the genre itself.
I see what you are wanting for though. My only point here is that I do not see how it is possible to have such things as you want above in a game and it still BE a RPG. RPGs by definition entail quantified progression of characters and taking away such incentives to play is like taking away the incentive to see new 'levels'(with new graphical environs and such) and beasties in an FPS game.

Well, this being a discussion and all, why don't you provide us with your reasons for this being impossible. More than just "That's the way it is, the way it's been, and the way it always will be"-types of arguments. Now reading some of the posts preceding your answer, I must say I'm in doubt of whether or not you've actually read them. There is a lot of points related to just this matter, of which you seem to ignore. See galsiah, Ismaul and Saint Proverbius posts especially.

This is getting a bit tedious, but here goes nothing. I'm here at the RPG forums discussing (you can look that up too) the topic "RPGs without leveling", and suggesting (keep the dictionary at hand) how RPGs could take more cues, than it allready does, from books and adventure games to motivate the player, and keeping the players interest.

That is fine and good. Discussion is always a good thing provided one side is able to keep his/her urge to make snarky remarks about the other's reading comprehension and such under control. It would be one thing if I actually demonstrated some difficulty in understanding what it written(and if I did then why would I even be responding in the thread in such a way that provokes you to go 'point-counterpoint' with me here?!) but to just toss such remarks around because you think they are clever insults that everyone and his brother does not use every five minutes at these forums and forums across the web...well, that is just asinine.

Point taken, and I hope you see that, despite that I'm arguing on some of the stuff you say here. I also hope you'll partake in the discussion in other ways than pissing contests of how much you know of this book, and that PnP, or specific game mechanics.

Now, I have to attend a family dinner for the rest of the evening, so for how much I would've liked to reply to so many other posts, that will have to wait.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I disagree. Roleplaying can be present in other type of games, just like combat/puzzles can be present in roleplaying. Having some roleplaying in a game doesn't make it a RPG. RPGs (should) focus on roleplaying. Space Traders don't.

Well, if you want to shit all over the established hallmarks of the genre, you can claim to role-play in any game that gives you any sort of multiple choice scenarios on how you deal with any sort of obstacle. Problem is, you'd be shitting without toilet paper.

The problem ain't levels or character systems, the problem is the design that stems beyond that in CRPGs these days. Early on in a CRPG, before a player customizes his character much, obstacles should be somewhat open for how the player wants to deal with them. A beginning player probably should be able to kill the guards or sneak around them or talk them in to leaving their posts or whatever to get in to the tower. It's later on that a character that made strict warrior choices shouldn't be able to thief his way in or smooth talk his way in as a rule of thumb. The converse is also true, a friggin' thief shouldn't be forced to kill the guards to get in. In fact, the thief probably shouldn't even be able to kill the guards, since they're most likely strict warriors.

The character system should enforce the role choices of the player and so should the area design as well. There's no real good reason why a 15th level thief should be able to toe-to-toe fight a 15th level warrior. He should slip passed the guard, jimmy the lock on the window, and slip in that way. Problem is not to many designers think that way, so you have thieves running around chopping up guards instead of being thieves.

Same thing goes for wizards. How many CRPGs offer spells other than ones that make things dead? A wizard should be able to invis himself, transmute a stone wall to mud to make a hole in the wall, and make his way in like that. Use illusions to trick the guards in to thinking he's a dragon so they run away would be another way. The problem is, wizards just get attack spells so they just blast the guards and do things the same way warriors do.

Anyone that's thinking character systems have no part in a CRPG has his head up his ass.

 

[galsiah]

...genre...

Again: a classification tool, not a design framework.
An intransigent notion of genre has no place in a design discussion.

The problem ain't levels or character systems, the problem is the design that stems beyond that in CRPGs these days...

That's fine if you're taking an existing RPG with a character progression system, and aiming to improve it. Of course you can eliminate most problems with a better system. That's not the point.

The point is whether it's possible/desirable (not necessary) to create a good RPG-like game from the ground up without a stat progression system. No-one (apart perhaps from Crichton) is saying they're always a bad thing - just that they're not always a good thing either.

There's no need to polarize the issue. Well implemented stat progression systems would be an advantage in some games, and a disadvantage in others. Putting one in simply because you've decided to make an RPG is stupid.

Anyone that's thinking character systems have no part in a CRPG has his head up his ass.

Again, no-one has been against character systems. No-one has said that character progression systems "have no part in an RPG". All anyone is suggesting is that a good RPG(-like) game could be made without stat progression, and that this might be beneficial to some game designs.

I can respect your point that broken progression systems are no reason to abandon progression systems altogether.
If you're suggesting that a progression system should be an a priori decision for any developer that thinks of his new game idea as an RPG, then you're the one with your head up your ass.

 

[Lumpy]

The problem ain't levels or character systems

Levels aren't a problem of RPGs, but neither are fantasy settings - if either are done right. That doesn't mean that all RPGs should have fantasy settings, not that all should have leveling.