RPGs with no progression

[Job Creator]

So you want to create a character, but only at the very beginning of the game? That would not leave much to do during the rest of the game except for gameplay like combat or puzzles that is common to other genres. Maybe alignment of factional changes?

Games consist of gameplay, no?
Spreadsheet autism is also gameplay (odd that there aren't more games with it that aren't tied to RPG conventions)

 

[Midair]

If you like character development, then why limit it to the character creation screen only? Sure there will be other kinds of gameplay during the rest of the game. Maybe the game world could react to your character. But how would your character react to the world?

 

[Kaucukovnik]

The reality is that progression systems do not have to be eliminated entirely, but something has to be done to mitigate the explosion of progression systems in non-RPGs and to constrain grinding or any other type of lizard brain/gambling exploitation in video games.

Progression systems could be interesting if they were based on success-reward models or trial and error, but they tend to be a matter of increasing an experience bar by doing a bunch of repetitive and increasingly uninteresting tasks. The problem in my view is not so much the existence of progression systems as the cheapening of them into behavioral systems in subscription-based systems.

This is a serious problem, some people are literally dying in gaming cafes in South Korea because they are trapped in these little skinner boxes.

Exactly. The official model of current progression-based games is basically this:
1. Get the player intrigued by the setting and theme.
2. Get him addicted to the progression system before the thin layer of the above wears off.
3. Profit!

Mostly related to subscriptions and microtransactions, but it is, sadly, the easier way for single-player games as well.

Another problem is that it's actually quite hard to create mechanics that reinforce acting in-character, instead of creating a completely unrelated meta that becomes the meat of gameplay. Instead of envisioning your character and then picking appropriate abilities, you are supposed to study the progression trees and optimize available choices, unless you want to end up with "lol bad build". Characters and archetypes get degraded to sets of stats like HP and DPS.
A strategy guide should never, ever be an improvement to first-time-around experience. Yet, how many games are there that eventually don't slap you in the face unexpectedly unless you have some foreknowledge?
Well, some games are obviously meant as character building exercises, but most actually have a story and/or world to enjoy.

I do enjoy optimizing my characters in RPGs, be it PC ones or PnP. But I can also clearly recall that my most memorable moments are those when I ignore or go against my "optimizer's itch".
And yeah, I'd consider some progression-less games more of RPGs than most full-fledged ones (Thief and Stalker comes to mind).

 

[Zeriel]

The reality is that progression systems do not have to be eliminated entirely, but something has to be done to mitigate the explosion of progression systems in non-RPGs and to constrain grinding or any other type of lizard brain/gambling exploitation in video games.

Progression systems could be interesting if they were based on success-reward models or trial and error, but they tend to be a matter of increasing an experience bar by doing a bunch of repetitive and increasingly uninteresting tasks. The problem in my view is not so much the existence of progression systems as the cheapening of them into behavioral systems in subscription-based systems.

This is a serious problem, some people are literally dying in gaming cafes in South Korea because they are trapped in these little skinner boxes.

Exactly. The official model of current progression-based games is basically this:
1. Get the player intrigued by the setting and theme.
2. Get him addicted to the progression system before the thin layer of the above wears off.
3. Profit!

Mostly related to subscriptions and microtransactions, but it is, sadly, the easier way for single-player games as well.

Another problem is that it's actually quite hard to create mechanics that reinforce acting in-character, instead of creating a completely unrelated meta that becomes the meat of gameplay. Instead of envisioning your character and then picking appropriate abilities, you are supposed to study the progression trees and optimize available choices, unless you want to end up with "lol bad build". Characters and archetypes get degraded to sets of stats like HP and DPS.
A strategy guide should never, ever be an improvement to first-time-around experience. Yet, how many games are there that eventually don't slap you in the face unexpectedly unless you have some foreknowledge?
Well, some games are obviously meant as character building exercises, but most actually have a story and/or world to enjoy.

I do enjoy optimizing my characters in RPGs, be it PC ones or PnP. But I can also clearly recall that my most memorable moments are those when I ignore or go against my "optimizer's itch".
And yeah, I'd consider some progression-less games more of RPGs than most full-fledged ones (Thief and Stalker comes to mind).

To be fair, you're speaking of two separate issues there. Even a game system that goes out of its way not to reward metagaming is going to be optimizable. Whenever there are choices, there are some that are better than others, no matter how small the difference is. Experience with a game system is always going to result in better characters. I suppose it just comes down to whether or not that difference matters--a lot of old singleplayer games didn't require min-maxing to succeed, it just made things easier.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

Not true when the use of different skills and skill sets is situational. For example you can let two-handed swords be clearly more powerful than daggers, but make them impractical or useless in many situations. Now we have gotten away from a simple equation. There is even a sensible reason to pick both, even though it means you are limiting your "maximum damage output" or whatever.
And from there it's not far from just using whatever equipment suits the situation, without any underlying progression system. If the same weapon is going to deal triple damage towards the end, the enemy stats or numbers need to compensate, so the progression doesn't matter all that much anyway, outside the "carrot" factor. An initial general archetype choice (e.g. strong - agile - balanced) is all you need.

Most progression systems are even harmful to well-built and believable worlds. A peasant is technically unable to murder a knight in his sleep, just because they are a number of levels apart? Bandits in certain town are five times weaker than those in another town, because the latter is endgame content and needs to prove a challenge?
GM's rulings and common sense can salvage PnP rules in this regard. CRPGs have no such feature.


Another technically non-RPG that almost felt like one was Rune. You gained better weapons and then lost them again, and the only constant progression was you finding out how to deal with different situations and opponents. Well, maybe your health bar increased throughout the game, can't really remember.

 

[Perkel]

No progression is best progression.
The more flat system is the more tactical it needs to be to create fun gameplay the more interesting game is.

Worst shit ever is to create 999 levels with 40 atrributes with xywird111*2 skills where each of skill is meaningless and each of them will get you through whole game because game is not tactical since no one will balance game for xywird111*2 skills, 40 attributes and 999 levels and because you have 999 levels you need to scale damage beyond low values thus making game even more shallow as it becomes DPS fest.


if you have 2 characters that are near identical everything other than characters starts to count. Even one cheap potion found in one of cheast earlier could make difference.

If you have 999 levels you will probably fights scaled to your level hobo and you probably will have in your skillbook skill that will anihilate that dude and shit ton of supergod power potions with instaheal and so on.


Best Dark souls would be with level cap of 25. Thanks to lvl cap your specialization will matter more than 999 level you can get.

Edit:

And no character progression =\= rpg so rpg without cp is still rpg

 

[CyberP]

It's a cheap trick that provides the lowest form of entertainment and appeals to the proto-mamallian part of the brain, not unlike pornography.
.

Good one, OP.

...You're not actually trolling are you?

How about looking at game design from the perspective of a game designer rather than a fucking psychologist?

Replayability
Choice and consequence
Player Progression
Gameplay depth
Strategy
and much more.

There are no singular game systems or mechanics that add so much to an experience as a good RPG rule set.

And you want to remove such fruitful concepts because they are "cheap"?

 

[Cadmus]

the OP's hatred for the character progression reminded me of the porn site pop ups "You have leveled up, click to claim your prize"
So I kind of understand the disgust with this cheap tactic when used solely for its sort of addictive purpose but you are exaggerating when it comes to real games.