Can you have an RPG without progression?

[JarlFrank]

A game where you create a character with stats, skills, feats etc but never level him/her up would still be an RPG.

This is hard to argue with, but I wish you'd provide an example or two.

There are no examples, but it's theoretically possible.

Crusader King ?

It's more of a strategy game, and also your character regularly gets events that improve or decrease his stats. There are even event chains to permanently raise bad stats to a better level.

The question is more about games where you don't change your character's stats throughout the game at all. Skills that improve by use can also work without levelups, but nobody would say that it's a game without leveling up.

 

[Reality]

How about an RPG where you get weaker?

I think there was that one game where you started with a team of clone super soldiers at max level, and all experience points made them level down to simulate "accelerated aging" or "bit decay" or whatever it was. I think it ended with you throwing your scraps against like a level 5 enemy.

 

[Molina]

A game where you create a character with stats, skills, feats etc but never level him/her up would still be an RPG.

This is hard to argue with, but I wish you'd provide an example or two.

There are no examples, but it's theoretically possible.

Crusader King ?

It's more of a strategy game, and also your character regularly gets events that improve or decrease his stats. There are even event chains to permanently raise bad stats to a better level.

The question is more about games where you don't change your character's stats throughout the game at all. Skills that improve by use can also work without levelups, but nobody would say that it's a game without leveling up.

Hmm. I'm not sure about that. Afterall, substantial marrow of the RPG is : events happen that change the world and the player character. If we consider that the stat is an abstraction of what the player can do... Then having a severed leg must have an impact on the stats. As I understand the meaning of the word "progression" it's the fact that the more events that happen, the more player character becomes "better". But it should not be confused with the word "change" which can be beneficial or bad.
And in this case, you can very well imagine an RPG (sandbox) where you create your character. You play the game, and the events change his stats without any progression. Besides, it could be the player's goal to reach perfection in a certain stat (become the best blade in the world).
But it would be a game with no mandatory progression, but at the end of the game, we would have a different player character than the one we started with, without being "better".


Just my opinion.

 

[CoronerZg]

Does an RPG stop being an RPG once you reach max level?

Nooooooo

(doing solo run in Kingmaker ...and I've reached lvl 20 few days ago)

 

[Hassar]

Of course. I think the character progression we usually think of is associated with a power fantasy that is not as intrinsic a part of the RPG game genre as we think. Most point and click adventure games in the early 80s-90s were more “RPG”-like than the level and stat progression game mechanics we see now: the correct answer to puzzles required you to think like the character in the game world in order to advance which could lead to obtuse results, but still: that’s more RPG-ish than playing a character who is morally conflicted about killing the genocidal archenemy after the character has murdered millions of minions including some ultra rare life forms who will probably go extinct in the character’s march to max level. Even Gygax’s original D&D revolved more around robbing treasure and avoiding enemies than progression in the stat sense. It’s probably more telling that our generation has so much trouble conceiving of another RPG experience because we have been so inundated with one RPG game system-type simply because that type is easier for computers to handle.

I think we don’t even think of a character gaining a new skill or knowledge as progression per se due to this: we lump those into the adventure game category.

I’m thinking those JRPG branching novel games or Choose Your Own Adventure with some form of major choice at the start can be the best example of “progression-less” RPG-gameplay - at least in the stat sense as you are still progressing through the story.

 

[moraes]

By progression do you mean just level up or equipment counts as well? Cause is Deus Ex considered an RPG?

I knew I would have to define progression sooner or later. For the sake of this thread, the following mechanics count as progression:

• Your character grows stronger by "leveling up", whether it be because you can allocate stat points/feats/skills following a level up, or because the game automatically raises your stats (whether it be stat points, feats, skills, hit points, "MP", or basic stats such as Strength and Defense), or because you in fact "level up" by gaining experience points. There's also the classic "get stronger by using your skills" seen in the Elder Scrolls games as well as the SaGa franchise.
  
• Your character grows stronger by obtaining equipment in a non-fixed way, i.e. killling enemies and finding equipment, farming enemies for gold and buying equipment, basically anything that doesn't require the player to find X equipment in a fixed spot (such as finding weapons in Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain or The Legend of Zelda).

In my opinion, if you have a game where the only thing that gets stronger is the player (i.e. "gets good") then you are not playing an RPG, but something else. If Fallout didn't let you progress your character or create your own, you would essentially be playing some sort of pure strategy game where the meat of the game is making the most of each situation with the resources you have. It dramatically changes what the game plays like, because the leveling up system in Fallout and the acquisition of equipment easily lets the player bypass these scenarios.

So basically if I DM a game where the players don't level up and only find fixed equipment in dungeon rooms (a classic high level dungeon crawl) I didn't play a RPG? These kind of consequences just shows the absurdities that follow with the Codex obsession of trying to define a RPG by a fixed set of necessary and sufficient conditions or properties.

 

[Sigourn]

So basically if I DM a game

I'm purely talking computer games here, because with your logic, The Legend of Zelda would be an RPG.

 

[moraes]

So basically if I DM a game

I'm purely talking computer games here, because with your logic, The Legend of Zelda would be an RPG.

No, that's your logic. Somebody in the Codex with another set of necessary and sufficient properties of what constitutes an RPG would say that e.g. Zelda doesn't have character creation, so it's not an RPG. And then you'll proceed to argue why. Forever.

 

[King Crispy]

Just imagine an adventure with only mundane equipment and not enough experience to reach the next level.

Ah, but the game in your example would be based on PnP rules that do of course allow leveling and would if the adventure in question awarded enough experience points to do so. So invalid example.

It's not an invalid example. The game itself would play at a single level, and you'd never level up, but it would still be an RPG in its ruleset, allow character creation, have stats and skills, dice-based combat, skill checks in dialogues, etc etc etc.

Just because you don't level up doesn't make the game not an RPG.

You could just as well imagine an RPG with an intricate custom ruleset not based on a pen and paper system, where you only have one level. But other than leveling up, it has all the features of a full fledged RPG.

That game would be an RPG.

The game you're describing stands as a valid candidate to be considered an RPG in this discussion, but the game he's describing already is an RPG by virtue of the fact that he said, "...not enough experience to reach the next level." That implies the game he's describing has leveling built in. What you're describing specifically does not.

So, ironically, your example is a better one for consideration than his is.

 

[Fishy]

I can't see why not, provided that there's a rich enough character creation. If you get to build up your character in various ways which will influence how likely you are to succeed/fail at various tasks, that's good enough for me, even if it doesn't go up over time. You just need the character to be more interesting than your average level 1 starting mook: allow the player to build up as anything from the swordmaster to the master alchemist, bard, courtesan or retired highwayman, and have enough ways to solve problems with varying consequences.

 

[King Crispy]

Let's imagine a really interesting theoretical example: a game that allows you to create and customize your character(s), complete with stats and skills, yet has no progression along those lines whatsoever, BUT does feature better equipment to be found throughout the game, thus statistically "improving" that/those character(s) through that equipment acquisition.

Is that an RPG?

 

[undecaf]

I don’t think leveling up is necessary if you roll your character at the start and the mechanics, reactivity, interactivity and C&C otherwise work appropriately.

Don’t know how ”good” a game like that would be overall, but if it was short enough and gave different kinds of characterbuilds something interesting to do and discover during the shortish length of the game, it could even be fun.

 

[Sigourn]

So basically if I DM a game

I'm purely talking computer games here, because with your logic, The Legend of Zelda would be an RPG.

No, that's your logic.

How so?

You are saying that a game where:

• You don't level up.
• Equipment is fixed.
• It's a dungeon crawl.

is an RPG. Unless you want to add turn-based or character stats decide your effectiveness in combat (which in a way is present in Zelda: equipment determines your effectiveness in combat), The Legend of Zelda is an RPG as it has all those traits you mentioned. There's also "character creation", but to me "character creation" doesn't define an RPG at all as many RPGs don't let you create your own character (like Gothic).

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

These are the minimum requirements for an RPG. Everything else gets a hyphen.

1. All player actions moderated through a mechanic (dice/cards/etc.)
2. Intrinsic character customization with mutually exclusive choices.
3. Exploration

Given the above criteria, yes it is possible. As others have stated, there are no known examples.

 

[ValeVelKal]

These are the minimum requirements for an RPG. Everything else gets a hyphen.

1. All player actions moderated through a mechanic (dice/cards/etc.)
2. Intrinsic character customization with mutually exclusive choices.
3. Exploration

Given the above criteria, yes it is possible. As others have stated, there are no known examples.

Sapiens by Loriciel, in 1986, "modernized" in 1996.

You create your character, explore a world, get to interact with NPC and have different dialog options, engage in (simplistic) quests, can have a companions, have combat, etc...

https://youtu.be/80fJTUtQp28?t=2797
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55LwYXlQEZU&t=

Free here :

https://www.myriad-online.com/en/products/sapiens.htm

 

[almondblight]

Of course. But a lot of people (including the majority of the people here) like RPGs for the same reason people like slot machines. Look at the complaints about PoE lacking combat XP - tons of people saying "Why am I doing this boring repetitive stuff when there's no reward?" when they should be asking "Why am I doing this boring repetitive stuff?" Take away the variable reward and people quickly realize how bad a lot of RPG gameplay is.

 

[moraes]

So basically if I DM a game

I'm purely talking computer games here, because with your logic, The Legend of Zelda would be an RPG.

No, that's your logic.

How so?

You are saying that a game where:

• You don't level up.
• Equipment is fixed.
• It's a dungeon crawl.

is an RPG.

No, I am not. That was merely a counter-example to your proposed definition of a RPG. I don't subscribe to any of the proposed concepts of RPG as a genre with a definite set of necessary and sufficient properties (like, e.g. the one you gave or the one that Mr. Magniloquent gave, or the 1000s proposed in the history of the RPG Codex). I don't subscribe to any because (a) people don't seem to agree to any set of criteria, (b) whenever one analyzes a proposed definition, absurd consequences follow, like excluding a run-of-the-mill scenario of a fixed level dungeon run and, most importantly, (c) even if one set of criteria was the definitive one, it would be useless, because one is perfectly capable of recognizing, playing and creating RPGs without such a putative perfect definition. I simply claim that somebody sufficiently familiarized with RPGs has an intuitive knowledge of what a RPG is, similar to one we can have of resemblance between members of a family. That knowledge is not of the conceptual type, in the sense of having The Definition of what is a RPG or a complete description of the characteristic one should have to be considered a member of a family. This type of intuitive knowledge relies first on knowledge of a tradition, like we know that RPGs are descendants of board wargames and pen & paper systems, and one knows that members of the Grayson family are descendants of some ancient people. Secondly, it relies in the capacity to make aesthetic distinctions that not necessarily parallels some conceptual criteria, like how we know that there are similar colors without having no knowledge of wavelengths of light. Finally, it relies on the capacity to recognize that even tough the youngest Grayson doesn't have the aquiline nose of the family of his brothers and sisters, he is nonetheless the newest member of the Grayson's, just like we can recognize Gothic as a RPG even without character creation.

So, why does the Codex insist in having The Definition of a RPG? I think it happens for one of two reasons: first is fear that the decline will take with it the true essence of RPGs, that in the constant simplification and massification the true experience of playing a RPG will be lost and that the duty of the RPG Codex is guarding the memory and knowledge of true RPGs so that when civilization is reborn it can play Wizardry like it should have always been played. The second one, the most common, is when some codexer doesn't like a game and uses the claim that "Game X is not really an RPG because RPGs are like Y" to surreptitiously claim that "Game X is bad", Disco Elysium being the latest victim of such maneuvers.

 

[Farewell into the night]

Yes.

 

[Valky]

Something I am curious about and Crispo echoed my thoughts on the kind of game where your character has no level and stats but instead gains increasingly more improved equipment.

Let's imagine a really interesting theoretical example: a game that allows you to create and customize your character(s), complete with stats and skills, yet has no progression along those lines whatsoever, BUT does feature better equipment to be found throughout the game, thus statistically "improving" that/those character(s) through that equipment acquisition.

Is that an RPG?

Would you define this as character progression? On technicality this is a form of progression, but you could make the case that equipment is not the character and shouldn't be considered character progression. Does this form of progression qualify for an RPG? I would argue no, because if you open the floodgates in this aspect, you dilute the classification of an RPG and too much dilution makes the classification meaningless. On that point, it seems like every other video game in general being made nowadays has some form of levels, stats, or items. The vast majority of games are not RPGs, so how does this discrepancy come about? I want to think it is the natural evolution of the video game industry slowly understanding that these sort of features tend to add greater depth to games, but in the process it dilutes the definition of an RPG. As such, in order to meaningfully preserve the ability to classify what an RPG is, I posit a fallback to the rule that if it is not turn based, it is not an RPG.

 

[Alpan]

The answer is yes. Not just yes, but obviously yes. I think the obviousness is unclear due to the way people approach the question, where they have a blank slate character in mind. But let's say I create a max-level D&D party of six, and place them in a dungeon full of intelligently designed, difficult but fair combat encounters, and then strip out all item rewards from them, while keeping some story and even puzzle elements intact; there would be no doubt that I would still be playing an RPG. Not just an RPG, but pretty close to a Codexian ideal of an RPG, where the gameplay is its own reward and difficulty ensures every choice has consequence.

 

[King Crispy]

the obviousness is unclear

 

[Arryosha]

A more interesting question (to me) is which crpgs are highly 'front-loaded' in the way character building works, and what makes them work? For me, PnP character building has always seemed highly front-loaded in this way and is still fun. There, progression seems to take a back seat compared to crpgs, at least in terms of what makes it fun for me. The character is built in detail from the start and then let loose on the world. Progression is like an added benefit.

 

[ColonelTeacup]

An RPG where your characters don't get stronger, whether by their own skills or by the acquisition of equipment... would it still be an RPG? Do you have any examples of the sort?

Note: self-imposed challenges don't count, as a racing game remains a racing game even if the player decides to drive the opposite way; if anything, one can say that the player is not actually racing.

In Shadow of The Colossus, you get weaker as the story progresses. I can't explain as that would be endgame spoilers.

 

[Metronome]

I haven't seen any examples in this thread, so I decided to try my hand at it.
I made this little game where you go through a dungeon without any progression.
You kill enemies, manage hitpoints and stamina, and try to make it to the end.
Here is the link:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=83041325082731567382

The interface works like an adventure game, but with only a few options. I put them all on the screen.
It's a simple console application that should run on anything. You can be the judge if it is an RPG or not.

 

[Harthwain]

Technically - yes. In a way this could be interesting, given that you wouldn't be able to "outlevel" the content and certain aspect wouldn't be within your reach (because you couldn't get everything at character generation) or would be much harder for you than for any other character.

But I disagree on the equipment part. It will make you stronger, even if it won't have effect, like, +2 to strength or something. Imagine being in a fight and using your fist. Then imagine the same fight with you using a knife. Then the same fight, but with a gun. Of course, your stats are still going to play vital role there, but the amount of potential damage you can cause with each is vastly different. Same goes for equipment like a computer. You may have the hacking skill, but what good it does to you when you don't have access to hardware and software needed to put that skill to use?

However, I always thought that half of the fun (or THE most fun, at least in my experience) when playing an RPG was deciding what skill to take and how it'd impact the game. Just because it's possible to create a game where you don't level up doesn't mean it's a good idea. There is a compromise though. Let's say you do level up, but in-between sessions/missions or it takes so long to do that you should be prepared to stick with what you've got at the start. I think Cyberpunk 2020 is the closest PnP RPG to that style of progression, because it's designed to have it very limited, compared to other RPGs out there.