Experience and character skill progression is pointless.

[Mastermind]

Do you think I'm going through combat after combat just to read more of your highbrow story?

This is funny. I've read another user said that, without a story, RPGs are pointless, i.e. "Do you think I'll bother going through combat after combat without a story?". Both are isolated comments from just two users, but the thing they have in common is that they have a major disdain for RPG combat. That is, you need autistic progression or retarded stories for people to be interested in them.

Progression is what makes an RPG an RPG, so of course you need it to even be called an RPG. If you're not interested in progression there's little reason to play most RPGs because most devs do indeed use the "it's an RPG" excuse to phone in the combat, or the combat ends up sucking ass because of poor design on the RPG side

 

[aweigh]

Micromanaging small amounts of points on skills often doesn't matter.

It depends on how it's done, really. For example take what happened to the Wizardry formula in 6, 7 and 8: they just took what classes could already do beforehand, say a Fighter be able to be proficient in all martial weapons or a Ninja being able to decapitate with 1 blow, and eliminated those features from the class and then just re-added it back into something you need to pump points into as you level up in order to be able to do it again.

Instead of a mage being able to use a spell at will, now he has to put points into it. The strategy is shifted from tactical (what spells to use, when to use them and how to use them) and changed to busy-work (I can case any spell I want whenever I want, but I need to put points into them first).

Where exactly is the progression here?

It's the worst kind of fake progression, and one of the reasons I always get very triggered when someone says this kind of thing is "progress" when it's clearly not. It's just taking something that already worked and allowed flexibility and making it less abstract without adding anything meaningful, and (arguably) taking away from it by making it less flexible. These kind of useless point systems just serve to railroad gameplay.

EDIT: Another big offender for doing this kind of utterly useless point shit are those Etrian Odyssey games, where the entire progression hinges on leveling up and putting 1 point into something utterly banal like increasing your Axe Proficiency by 5% or whatever.

A lot of people look at these systems where the player has seemingly a lot of choice in what to increase during levelling, but when you take a step back and analyze it you realize it's all utterly retarded railroaded game-ification that ends up giving the player less choice in the gameplay; however players are fooled into thinking this is "progress" because:

- it's new! It's different from what those old games did so it must be better!

- there's more stuff to choose from! you can put points into many different skills whereas in the old games you didn't do any of that! (Because your character could already do that stuff to begin with).

 

[a Goat]

U guys are a reason why this genre is hollibre.

 

[Sacred82]

Do you think I'm going through combat after combat just to read more of your highbrow story?

This is funny. I've read another user said that, without a story, RPGs are pointless, i.e. "Do you think I'll bother going through combat after combat without a story?". Both are isolated comments from just two users, but the thing they have in common is that they have a major disdain for RPG combat. That is, you need autistic progression or retarded stories for people to be interested in them.

1.) people who think gameplay is an interruption to story are using the wrong medium. Books are the thing you're looking for. Look it up.

2.) RPG gameplay, wether combat related or not, is heavily reward centric. There's a reason why people went apeshit when Josh announced there would be no kill XP in Pillars. This isn't about some lameass re-enactment of historical battles. It's about squad based combat in Fantasyland where the motivation IS making the numbers go up. At least on the player's side, on the ingame side, devs usually fail to supply a motivation. They just assume their bullshit story about saving the world from some Evul is motivation enough for the characters to get and stay involved.

also gj on implying that there's "progression" and then there's "autistic progression", retard

 

[Sigourn]

1.) people who think gameplay is an interruption to story are using the wrong medium. Books are the thing you're looking for. Look it up.

I know what a book is. I don't know why you are telling me this, though. I just drew a comparison between two different users with two different mindsets, which I share neither of.

2.) RPG gameplay, wether combat related or not, is heavily reward centric. There's a reason why people went apeshit when Josh announced there would be no kill XP in Pillars. This isn't about some lameass re-enactment of historical battles. It's about squad based combat in Fantasyland where the motivation IS making the numbers go up. At least on the player's side, on the ingame side, devs usually fail to supply a motivation. They just assume their bullshit story about saving the world from some Evul is motivation enough for the characters to get and stay involved.

also gj on implying that there's "progression" and then there's "autistic progression", retard

This sounds like autism to me:

the motivation IS making the numbers go up

I mean, you have effectively said that without numbers, the combat is boring. How is that not autistic? Like, I can enjoy combat in many games just fine and they don't have cute and funny experience points going up. The way you word it, however, makes it seem like even the best combat will be unfun without experience points of some kind.

What's more, developers capitalize on your autism by adding experience points to the most generic action games just for them to become "action RPGs" when the only "RPG" thing about them is increasing damage.

 

[Sigourn]

Progression is what makes an RPG an RPG, so of course you need it to even be called an RPG. If you're not interested in progression there's little reason to play most RPGs because most devs do indeed use the "it's an RPG" excuse to phone in the combat, or the combat ends up sucking ass because of poor design on the RPG side

I agree with this. But I don't think progression by itself is a good thing. I'd rather have an RPG with no experience points than an RPG with experience points tacked on. To me, an RPG is not about levels or experience. It's about being able to build your own character to tackle the obstacles presented to you in your own way.

What experience points achieve, in a good RPG, is letting you unlock more and more options to tackle said challenges. But by no means they are necessary.

 

[Sacred82]

1.) people who think gameplay is an interruption to story are using the wrong medium. Books are the thing you're looking for. Look it up.

I know what a book is. I don't know why you are telling me this, though. I just drew a comparison between two different users with two different mindsets, which I share neither of.

you = whoever holds that mindset

2.) RPG gameplay, wether combat related or not, is heavily reward centric. There's a reason why people went apeshit when Josh announced there would be no kill XP in Pillars. This isn't about some lameass re-enactment of historical battles. It's about squad based combat in Fantasyland where the motivation IS making the numbers go up. At least on the player's side, on the ingame side, devs usually fail to supply a motivation. They just assume their bullshit story about saving the world from some Evul is motivation enough for the characters to get and stay involved.

also gj on implying that there's "progression" and then there's "autistic progression", retard

This sounds like autism to me:

the motivation IS making the numbers go up

I mean, you have effectively said that without numbers, the combat is boring.

I said numbers going up. At least quote me correctly. There'd still be numbers pertaining to combat with no progression in power, I'd assume.

How is that not autistic? Like, I can enjoy combat in many games just fine and they don't have cute and funny experience points going up. The way you word it, however, makes it seem like even the best combat will be unfun without experience points of some kind.

We've been talking before ITT about how progression in power isn't necessarily tied to levels or experience points. Bigger guns, more advanced units, more of those units, it's all a progression in power quantitatively and also often qualitatively. So yeah you could have characters starting out with certain attributes and never leveling up, but if they keep on collecting better armor and weapons, or new spells, there's still a progression in power. So the question would actually be why you want the characters' attributes to be exempt from that progression.

What games have you played where you were enjoying combat throughout the game even though there was no progression in power to your units?

 

[Sigourn]

you = whoever holds that mindset

I don't think that's grammatically correct in this case, but whatever you say.

I said numbers going up. At least quote me correctly.

My mistake when typing, but I still believe the idea that combat without numbers going up being "unfun", or, better said, "non-RPG", is autistic.

We've been talking before ITT about how progression in power isn't necessarily tied to levels or experience points. Bigger guns, more advanced units, more of those units, it's all a progression in power quantitatively and also often qualitatively. So yeah you could have characters starting out with certain attributes and never leveling up, but if they keep on collecting better armor and weapons, or new spells, there's still a progression in power. So the question would actually be why you want the characters' attributes to be exempt from that progression

That beats me. Going back to what I said earlier, experience and levels (or pretty much any equivalent mechanic) that lets you unlock new skills/abilities are a cool feature since they let you expand your character beyond their initial abilities. This is personally what I like. The OP hasn't made a good case at all as to why these mechanics need to be cut from RPGs, instead blaming it on other elements (such as misses and encounter design).

What games have you played where you were enjoying combat throughout the game even though there was no progression in power to your units?

I enjoyed fighting games.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Garbage in, garbage out. Paralyzing a game because it has some weakness at the extremes of its system is not a good solution. Obviously, designing a better system that isn't lopsided at its extremes is superior, but encounter design can remedy the worst it. The use of ECL, which seems to have been bizarrely abandoned can do a great deal to keep bloat from unbalancing the PC in a large game.

Can you enlighten me with what ECL means ?

ECL stands for Effective Character Level, which is a method for computing a character's/creature's overall power. That aside, typing ECL was a mental lapse. I meant to type CR, or Challenge Rating. This is a calculation where experience is awarded in proportion to the relative power of the combatants. Characters are awarded bonus experience for overcoming encounters greater than their own power level, and reduced experience is awarded for defeating encounters under their character level. It strongly diminishes farming, “degenerate gameplay”, and smoothes the progression curve so that large divergences in character level are exceedingly less likely. If you've ever played Icewind Dale II or Neverwinter Nights 1.

 

[Sacred82]

you = whoever holds that mindset

I don't think that's grammatically correct in this case, but whatever you say.

"people who think..." "if you..." Yep, grammatically correct as far as I can see. And totally not autistic of you to stumble over that.

I said numbers going up. At least quote me correctly.

My mistake when typing, but I still believe the idea that combat without numbers going up being "unfun", or, better said, "non-RPG", is autistic.

You should define 'autistic' if you want to keep beating that dead horse. Since you're temporarily a shut-in pretending to go whack whack on little fictional people, it might just be autistic either way.

We've been talking before ITT about how progression in power isn't necessarily tied to levels or experience points. Bigger guns, more advanced units, more of those units, it's all a progression in power quantitatively and also often qualitatively. So yeah you could have characters starting out with certain attributes and never leveling up, but if they keep on collecting better armor and weapons, or new spells, there's still a progression in power. So the question would actually be why you want the characters' attributes to be exempt from that progression

That beats me. Going back to what I said earlier, experience and levels (or pretty much any equivalent mechanic) that lets you unlock new skills/abilities are a cool feature since they let you expand your character beyond their initial abilities. This is personally what I like.

Like, I can enjoy combat in many games just fine and they don't have cute and funny experience points going up. The way you word it, however, makes it seem like even the best combat will be unfun without experience points of some kind.

nigga, plz. Sort your shit out.

is it:

1.) Experience gain and levels is always autistic

and if so

2.) you enjoy it because it's autistic

3.) you enjoy it despite it being autistic but you can also enjoy something else

The OP hasn't made a good case at all as to why these mechanics need to be cut from RPGs, instead blaming it on other elements (such as misses and encounter design).

And your case is... they can be cut because they're autistic. (?)

What games have you played where you were enjoying combat throughout the game even though there was no progression in power to your units?

I enjoyed fighting games.

good point, and then again not, because you talk about other people's "major disdain for RPG combat", and then you propose some kind of beat 'em up combat resolution for RPG's?

 

[huskarls]

well, if they took a game and just gradually made the AI and combat harder instead of changing up the numbers then the majority of their customers couldn't finish the game. best they can do is modes increasing enemy stats/dmg with the occasional optional boss fight or optional puzzle

 

[a Goat]

1.) people who think gameplay is an interruption to story are using the wrong medium. Books are the thing you're looking for. Look it up.

Writing for videogames is super complex because it doesn't necessarily have fixed progression of events in specific intervals that you can kind of engineer(let's just say that there are effective ways of making "attention grasping" pacing when writing). Especially in RPG's it's just hard to couple the typical freedom you get with storytelling. So in the end it really means that you either have gameplay or story. Which is however something I went over and over again, but you have to understand that gameplay is interruption to the story and story is interruption to the gameplay.

 

[Sacred82]

well, if they took a game and just gradually made the AI and combat harder instead of changing up the numbers then the majority of their customers couldn't finish the game. best they can do is modes increasing enemy stats/dmg with the occasional optional boss fight or optional puzzle

Your numbers go up, combat and AI gets "harder" and their numbers go up. No difference there except you're given the chance to keep working on your party concept.

Let's not forget that raw numbers are usually on the side of the enemy and it's about how you utilize the numerical values on your side... e.g. spells and abilities.

Writing for videogames is super complex because it doesn't necessarily have fixed progression of events in specific intervals that you can kind of engineer(let's just say that there are effective ways of making "attention grasping" pacing when writing).

bullshit detected

"fixed progression of events" oh yes son. Depends what you call "a specific interval", if the player is given whatever amount of time (possibly an unlimited amount) to finish some section pertaining to the story, possibly with some side content, does the story resume at a "specified interval" or no?

Question is still if that's relevant or no, what matters usually is you ran the gauntlet that the story required you to run, and it picks up again at the necessary end of that gauntlet (e.g. the final battle). No super complexity here, carry on.

Especially in RPG's it's just hard to couple the typical freedom you get with storytelling. So in the end it really means that you either have gameplay or story.

I agree there's a certain dichotomy here, definitely as far as focus goes. Ultimately you don't want an RPG without story or without gameplay.

Which is however something I went over and over again, but you have to understand that gameplay is interruption to the story and story is interruption to the gameplay.

In a game properly focusing on story, gameplay is an aside given to the player as a necessary consideration of what the medium is. If you consider it an interruption, you're using the wrong medium. In a game properly focusing on gameplay, the player absorbs as much of the story as they want to, there's not more interruption to it than pressing a pause button - interruption necessarily means it's being forced on the player.

 

[JarlFrank]

1.) people who think gameplay is an interruption to story are using the wrong medium. Books are the thing you're looking for. Look it up.

Writing for videogames is super complex because it doesn't necessarily have fixed progression of events in specific intervals that you can kind of engineer(let's just say that there are effective ways of making "attention grasping" pacing when writing). Especially in RPG's it's just hard to couple the typical freedom you get with storytelling. So in the end it really means that you either have gameplay or story. Which is however something I went over and over again, but you have to understand that gameplay is interruption to the story and story is interruption to the gameplay.

And if a writer is good he can actually deliver a decent enough story that offers choices, consequences, and gameplay variation rather than being a linear thing you gotta follow.

Yes, it's hard. But it's not impossible.

You just need to go with a more de-centralized approach to quest design where you design various situations and give the player the choice on how to handle them, rather than forcing the player into a central and mostly linear sequence of main quests that need to be tackled in order.

Fallout is a good example. It has a decent enough story but all you really have to do it find a water chip, deal with the military base, and deal with the Master. That's it. How you do these things and which paths you take to get there is up to you, and during all the content in-between you get to make your own choices rather than being led on a leash.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

One of my ideal world ideas would be that of Fallout 1, just on a grander scale. Imagine an open-world like Morrowind where the goal is to find some legendary weapon or amulet, but the path and how you get there is completely up to you. You can find clues that lead you to certain people, but overall it's like a huge interconnected web that you can approach many different ways. The quest would be super long and just there as something to eventually find but it would be a background for exploring around. No rush, just a Fallout 1 world times 20 in size and scale, stretched out to fulfill a 100 or 200 hour long RPG. It wouldn't be linear and you can find the amulet a myriad of different ways, working for completely different people or even finding the super secret location on your own (which would be very hard to do). In subsequent playthroughs you can try and go directly for the amulet but you'll die from high level encounters, so you'd be pushed to explore and level up. I'd love to see a Morrowind type world with this type of main quest.

 

[Shadenuat]

You mean like Grimoire

 

[Sigourn]

You should define 'autistic' if you want to keep beating that dead horse.

Meh. I could have used "retarded" as well.

nigga, plz. Sort your shit out.

I don't need to sort anything out. I can enjoy RPGs without character progression just fine, as opposed to you, who absolutely needs (autism) character progression to enjoy RPGs.

And your case is... they can be cut because they're autistic. (?)

I'm not making any case, really. I just pointed out how it is funny that people shit on RPG combat. Some because it is boring without a story. Others because it is boring without character progression. As if combat was doomed to be shit, which isn't true, and that's what makes you autistic.

and then you propose some kind of beat 'em up combat resolution for RPG's?

You didn't ask me to post an RPG example, though.

 

[Terpsichore]

My main gripe is that when playing on the high difficulties, it is always a dreadsome hell early but nearing the late game you just start facerolling everything without a care. The difficulty should be a slope with reasonable spikes for boss fights and key areas.

 

[Sacred82]

You should define 'autistic' if you want to keep beating that dead horse.

Meh. I could have used "retarded" as well.

or stoopid, poopity-poop, etc. Got it, you just don't like it.

nigga, plz. Sort your shit out.

I don't need to sort anything out. I can enjoy RPGs without character progression just fine, as opposed to you, who absolutely needs (autism) character progression to enjoy RPGs.

plz tell me more about those RPG's without character progression you've enjoyed so far.

And your case is... they can be cut because they're autistic. (?)

I'm not making any case, really. I just pointed out how it is funny that people shit on RPG combat. Some because it is boring without a story. Others because it is boring without character progression.

So you think if people think if something was different from how it is now, that would suck, those people are shitting on it.

and then you propose some kind of beat 'em up combat resolution for RPG's?

You didn't ask me to post an RPG example, though.

I'm doing that now, but I don't have to, retard. It was your decision to start talking about fightan gaymes. The hallmark of bullshitters is that they keep moving the goal posts.

 

[Geckabor]

ITT people confess to not actually liking RPGs.

 

[Max Damage]

The complaints in OP are very D&D-specific, I can't really count many instances outside of 2nd/3rd Edition-based c/jRPGs where the progression is so flawed. Said progression could've been fixed with additional playtesting and number tweaking (miss-miss-miss part, in particular, is often result of ludicrously high AC, like in ToEE). Games without character/attrubite/skill progression still play like shit when not playtested properly, I don't find this a valid reason for removing defining characteristic of a genre. I would rather see more horizontal progression than vertical, but removing elements =/= smoother experience (to use popular comparison, see Morrowind->Oblivion, where deterministic combat is worse than RNG because HP bloat, unavoidable stagger, and lack of nuances except for block/stagger).

 

[aweigh]

I'd rather have an RPG with no experience points than an RPG with experience points tacked on.

This actually brings to mind the recent abominations created with implementation of "progression systems" into Assassin's Creed and Far Cry series.

They're shining examples of how simply plopping in a progression system in order to gatekeep game content is a fantastic way of ruining a game, and also serve as good examples to point to as to why simply having "progression mechanics" doesn't magically add depth or complexity.

 

[Sigourn]

I'd rather have an RPG with no experience points than an RPG with experience points tacked on.

This actually brings to mind the recent abominations created with implementation of "progression systems" into Assassin's Creed and Far Cry series.

They're shining examples of how simply plopping in a progression system in order to gatekeep game content is a fantastic way of ruining a game, and also serve as good examples to point to as to why simply having "progression mechanics" doesn't magically add depth or complexity.

It's funny that you mention AC since I was thinking exactly of that game when I typed that comment. It's one of many recent examples of action games becoming "RPGs" for the sole purpose of capitalizing on the RPG moniker.

 

[aweigh]

Not simply capitalizing on the "RPG moniker", Ubisoft utilizes the bloated XP requirements as a way of gatekeeping content from the player so that the player becomes impatient and chooses to purchase the abilities/XP/content from the microtransaction store.

It is a true diabolical implemention of progression where they intentionally make it as tedious as possible in order to incentivize buying stuff that makes it less tedious.

...but I don't mean to turn this into a discussion on microtransactions and pay-to-win, just pointing out how thoroughly corrupt their implementation of "progression mechanics" has become in every sense of the word.