What's more important for an RPG: Char creation/customization or leveling up?

[samuraigaiden]

Is this post satire? I honestly can't tell anymore. Doesn't want to think about build or read any information about builds, but wants to play on hardest difficulty? I bet you loved PF: Kingmaker. I have more fun planning and creating characters in that than actually playing the game.

You can have games where you need no previous knowledge on how stats and builds work without sacrificing complexity. The trick is exactly what Zibniyat said: make it simple at the start and then progressively more complex and difficult. This way you can learn how mechanics work while actually playing the game. I think a great recent example is Troubleshooter: you can skip all the tutorials and simply learn everything by playing. It will take a bit of time, but at least you will have fun while doing it.

With (pre-5E) D&D videogames it's not that easy, but you can probably still do it through clear informative combat logs and respeccing options. But maybe with D&D videogames it's probably not that important, since in 2021 you can reasonably expect players to already know how most of the game mechanics work (unless you are throwing at them truly esoteric stuff like... I'm almost scared of saying it... spider swarms).

Troubleshooter is the new Hitler. Every x number of comments somebody will inevitably bring it up.

 

[NJClaw]

Troubleshooter is the new Hitler. Every x number of comments somebody will inevitably bring it up.

It's that good.

 

[Darkzone]

As Jigby pointed out, I am talking about the CRPGs. These 3/4 games have no character improvement, or at least so little character improvement that it might as well not exist.

Mea culpa. But even in this fever induced mistake i have revealed two things.
1) This games are so shit that despite completing Megatraveller (1 or 2 or both) i have effectively erased them from my mind due to their insignificance and the lack of memorables. And if i wouldn't own Twilight 2000 as pnp i wouldn't even have it on my register, because after few missions Twilight 2000 becomes repetitive and boring. And even my love for Jules Verne wasn't enough to guide me through the entire Space: 1899.

2) The original pnp RPGs have the necessary RPG component of leveling up / skill increase system and they are still beloved like in the case of Space: 1889 and Megatraveller. While their computer adventure derivatives are not even a footnote of RPGs history. And as octavius has writen this games fun starts and ends with the character generation and they are massively overshadowed in all aspects by games with pre generated characters and NPC companions, like Diablo or The Witcher or etc. The question that should be asked is: why is that so?
The answer is the lacking of the necessary heart of RPGs: leveling up. This is a vital component of the player reward by progressing the player characters and this sustains the cycle of a RPG: quest acceptance and earning XP rewards for a level up. Because it is mostly the raise of the character that is important in a RPG much more important than the earned higher tier "magical" weapons and armors (can be just 2 tier system or be even dropped entirely in some cases). It is based on the reality of human skill increase due to training and learning and is the core of the hero's journey where the hero meats a father figure that teaches and trains him, like in the case of Luke Skywalker with master Obi Van and Yoda.

You really are confused on the matter though. Path of Exile is an excellent example of the second type and there is a lot of customization when it comes to building your character.

What? Path of Exile doesn't give you fixed level-up bonuses with no choice. It gives you a point you can invest in a huge sprawling skilltree and you can even branch out into the skills of other classes rather than sticking to your own. This is absolutely NOT what I was talking about with Game B.

It is about customisation vs leveling up and by extremes you try to figure out what is more important, but is there any true example of Game B ? Because i can think only about The Bards Tale I since it caps the attributes at 18 and this would correspond to this extreme. Perhaps Invictus but i ain't sure about the customisation of the Heroes. Diablo has a attribute value customisation and on this basis you dismiss such games. One could argue that Goldbox games with only Fighters with the same standard picture and same attribute values would correspond to this.
Think about how this named cycle sustains a RPG and how to influence it.

 

[samuraigaiden]

Is there any true example of Game B ?

The original Dragon Quest game has only one character, no character creation, all level ups have predetermined stat distribution and the equipment is all identical and only incrementally stronger (sword+1, sword+2, etc.). BUT experience is only gained via combat and there is no out of combat skills that I can remember.

 

[Pocgels]

I would rather create a build over the course of a game than at the start, all at once. I've screwed myself over in character generation by making weak and/or boring characters before. If you know what you're getting into when you're making a character, it's fine, but depending on the mechanics of the game, you may end up hating the type of person that you made. So if it's a classless game without unique races or anything, I'd rather just start at 10 in everything and be free to experiment. I also am a slave to leveling, and still feel a small rush when I hear the little ding that it makes.

 

[Zibniyat]

I.. hate character creation, I usually just storm through the inevitable tedious of it all. I also dislike having to spend hours thinking on whether my build will suffice in providing me with both enjoyment and the ability to finish the game, and all that before I even started playing the game. "Read the manual", no I will fucking not, I want to play the game, you know, not read walls of text outside of it.

Make it simple at the start and then progressively more complex and difficult. As a rule I play games on the hardest difficulty unless it means single life or obnoxious HP-bloat of enemies. So it is not that I am against challenge, complexity or difficulty, I am simply not having the time nor patience any more to waste getting into the game that I may drop mere hours into it if I find out I dislike it.

So, that would mean I would rather prefer the latter kind of RPGs. Even prefab characters are fine, complete with disadvantages.

Is this post satire? I honestly can't tell anymore. Doesn't want to think about build or read any information about builds, but wants to play on hardest difficulty? I bet you loved PF: Kingmaker. I have more fun planning and creating characters in that than actually playing the game.

I prefer to play the game, and do things in-game, rather than reading manuals or similar. That is my preference. I am of the opinion that games should offer a way to, at least during the first several hours, for a player to decide for himself what kind of character they should play; of course some broad categories must be selected before starting the game proper, like choosing what race and class to play.

Detailed character creation, with dozens and hundreds of attributes, skills and other things to choose from, prior to even starting the game or being able to assess whether the game is even worth one's time, is testing my patience. And if the game proves its worth, I will replay the game agin and that time I will know what I want to play and be able to make a more detailed character, which the game can offer in its "new game +" or whatever mode.

I have more fun planning and creating characters

Well I don't. That you do like it is fine with me, however, but there is no logical superiority of your preference to that of mine.

Lastly, I have no issues with challenge. I have played some games so insanely challenging that it took me hours to beat a single boss for example (talking about platformers). What I dislike is being forced in advance to expend a lot of time and effort "planning" something which I should not be doing, since I don't really know if I'll play the game for more than few hours (character creation is nice, but far more important is what awaits).

 

[Lurker47]

You really are confused on the matter though. Path of Exile is an excellent example of the second type and there is a lot of customization when it comes to building your character.

Then... Path of Exile is not an excellent example of the second type. A game that doesn't have character creation but still lets you customize your character through level ups has nothing to do with what the OP describes as Game B.

Then I'd argue it's a bit of a false equivalency tbh.

 

[laclongquan]

Let's leave the old days aside for a few minutes

In these new days, we dont have time to try a game for too long. Too many alternatives for that.

Thus if the first few hours are good, then it's good to continue. Thus a game with good char creation pay off immediately.

And if the first few hours are no good, then it's possible not worth our time to continue, thus one or two levelup doesnt mean shit even if you build that process good~ Thus the levelup doesnt pay up at all.

Levelup only pay up with 3-4 level at least. Which is at the very least two hours of playing. Too long~

 

[Goldschmidt]

You really are confused on the matter though. Path of Exile is an excellent example of the second type and there is a lot of customization when it comes to building your character.

What?

Path of Exile doesn't give you fixed level-up bonuses with no choice.

It gives you a point you can invest in a huge sprawling skilltree and you can even branch out into the skills of other classes rather than sticking to your own. This is absolutely NOT what I was talking about with Game B.

My bad, I assumed you referred to type B games as games with no character creation but an extended lvelup system. Fixed lvl up bonuses dont give you much flexibility in character development. The clear choice is A now.

 

[Excommunicator]

Ruined a potentially good debate with a really bad hypothetical.

Option A is an RPG and option B has no choice and is purely window dressing.

Voted B in protest

 

[DraQ]

How the poll is currently worded only levelups are asked, not overall progression in form of items or other weirder stuff like information advantage. How the poll is worded levelups are less important but that misses the point of the comparison.
Both customisation and progression are absolutely paramount to rpgs.

While there are some rpgs that do not have character progression in the form of the level up, you usually still get stronger from the first gameplay hour to the last in the sense that you aquire new weapons, consumables or other inventory based upgrades.
And for customisation even JRPGs like Chrono Trigger have it, as you might not be able to choose the abilities of an individual unit, but you can choose which units you take to combat and how you equip them. Leading to a different combat experience.

I don't think I have ever played an rpg that has absolutely zero in either progression or customisation.
The only real "maybe" rpg that had zero customisation but progression was Dragon Warrior 1. But that game, while fun, is so archaic that it can fall between the cracks of usable definitions.

So I want option 3, Kingcomrade, having completely zero progression or customisation makes it not an rpg. Both are too essential to the genre for that.

The poll is currently worded in such way as to abstract away as much as possible and works exactly as intended. Items or information advantage are not RPG specific.
Building your character and level ups generally are.
But only one of those options is necessary AND sufficient to make game an RPG and only one of them doesn't become a joke in isolation.

HINT

An RPG is one all the time, rather than intermittently.

Customization IS what makes game an RPG. The second option could only have been picked by brain-damaged dopamine junkies (meaning that at least >1/3 of Codex is, completely unexpectedly, barely smart enough to breathe unassisted).

That doesn't mean that level ups are useless.
Most importantly they allow completing one's build gradually, based on feedback received during the game.
They also reflect character's growth which often makes sense in the narrative, and, yes, provide periodic rewards.

But in the end level ups are only meaningful as customization broken down into chunks and doled out over time.
An RPG remains an RPG also between level ups.

 

[Funposter]

An RPG remains an RPG also between level ups.

Agreed, hence the question posed on page 3 which was sadly ignored or not understood:

How many campaigns of D&D were abandoned before the players made it to Level 2?

Anyone voting that levelling up is most important or the core of an RPG is thereby suggesting that a game cannot be an RPG until the player has levelled up. This means that possibly the majority of tabletop roleplaying campaigns in history were in fact not RPGs, since many thousands of campaigns have been abandoned before any meaningful progress was made.

 

[gurugeorge]

Thought about this question after reading the CRPG Addict's blog and the guy considers leveling up an absolute core element of the genre, to the point that he considers a game with no char creation and a simplistic leveling system more of an RPG than a game with complex char creation but no leveling.

So let's set this straight with a Codex poll.

Let's take a look at two hypothetical games, both at opposite extremes. One of them has a complex and engaging character creation system, but no levelups. The other has no character creation and no customization, but it has leveling, and a lot of it.

In game A, you can choose everything about your character. Sex and appearance, skills, perks, etc. You can pick between a male or female character, customize his/her appearance, and you get 1000 points to invest into various stats and skills in a flexible classless system. There's a couple of Fallout-style perks you can buy with your points, too. You can play a female assassin who focuses on stealth, backstabs, and seduction. Or you can play a tough barbarian with high strength and high weapon skills but the charisma of a dead toad. Or you can play a wizard fully focused on intelligence and spellcasting, but zero points in any physical weapon skills. Or you can go for the jack of all trades.
But once you have created your character, that's it. Nothing in the game gives XP, you will never level up. You create your character and you're stuck with him/her.

In game B, there is no character creation. You play a male jack of all trades with 10 points in every stat and 1 point in every skill. You can't even customize his appearance, you gotta accept the ugly mug the devs chose for him. But there's a ton of leveling up to be done. Every action gives XP. Kill an enemy? XP. Pick a lock? XP. Finish a quest? XP. Talk to an NPC and find out a new piece of information? XP.
But whenever you level up, your character gets +1 in every stat and +1 in every skill, and that's it. You don't get to allocate any points as you see fit, the game just raises ALL your attributes by one on each level up. There is zero customization. You can't specialize into a fighter, thief, or mage, you are always gonna be a jack of all trades. There is no level cap, though, so you can keep leveling infinitely as long as you gather more XP.

Which of these is more of an RPG? Game A or game B?
The correct answer is, of course, "game A". This is not an opinion poll, it's a retard test.

You certainly do need some form of progression in RPGs, but the convention of xp and levelling is a kludge that some game designers invented back in the 70s to make life easier for themselves. Originally it wasn't too bad if you were talking about like 10 levels, that kind of makes sense in representing something like a social aspect in the game world (like you're moving from novice to apprentice to master level type of thing). But the whole thing went crazy with MMOs when they got into 80 levels. The system then loses all meaning and becomes a dull convention that everyone just follows, and (as a player) expects.

Games could easily do without xp and levels and be based on skills progression alone, or mainly (with as aforesaid, a few levels to represent more of the social aspect in the game world), which would make a ton more sense, but the problem is skill based progression seems to be difficult to implement and it's just easier to develop games with xp and leveling.

Trouble is, everyone's so used to the convention now that they think it's synonymous with RPGs. Whaddayagonnado.

But character creation in some form is essential to RPGs - unless you're slipping into the shoes of a pre-established character like Geralt, but even then you're shaping the details of your version of the character as you go.

To put this another way, levels should be related to the character's standing in the game-world itself. For example, even if you're a "level 1" prodigy whose skills have progressed far enough that they could probably handle "level 2" monsters, you won't be "authorized" (by the appropriate authorities) to handle "level 2" monsters until you've harvested what the authorities consider sufficient "experience" to deal with them properly, and then when you get the "experience" you're granted the authority (in some kind of ceremonial fashion, be it nothing more than pinning a badge on your chest) that you are allowed to venture into "level 2" areas.

I think this was the original sense of it, and some East Asian games (and manga/anime) still handle it this way, and it makes a lot more sense than being a total representation of capability full stop - which is what the convention has become.

 

[gurugeorge]

Also, if levels are fewer and further between, then the mark of whether you're ready for another level would be that the mobs at that level are getting too easy and you're getting into a power fantasy. IOW, the problem with having too many levels is that you can't have too much differentiation between the real power level of the mobs per level, whereas with fewer levels, you can have each level be a marked bump in difficulty - so with access to a new level of mobs, it starts out hard, and you're challenged again, and by the end of it if your skills have risen at a decent level as well, those mobs are getting too easy, so it's time to go up a level.

That's how levels should be handled, I think - partly as an in-game sociological recognition of status (that you've achieved the ability to treat mobs of that level as chaff), partly as a way of getting a rhythm going between phases of challenge and phases of power fantasy.

 

[octavius]

Anyone voting that levelling up is most important or the core of an RPG is thereby suggesting that a game cannot be an RPG until the player has levelled up. This means that possibly the majority of tabletop roleplaying campaigns in history were in fact not RPGs, since many thousands of campaigns have been abandoned before any meaningful progress was made.

No, it simply means I want to customize my character(s) during play, not before when I'm not familiar with the system.
The poll wasn't about what defines an RPG.

 

[DraQ]

No, it simply means I am illiterate

Fixed.
You're welcum.

 

[Gastrick]

Which of these is more of an RPG? Game A or game B

This thread makes no sense unless you equate RPG with CRPG. Obviously then game B wouldn't be an "RPG" as they all have chardev or character creation options. Game A is still vaguely an "RPG" so it wins.

 

[boot]

what a stupid fucking thread

 

[Newfag-er]

Would rather take my time to make my decision as I play and regretting it later on as compare to making them all at once than regretting everything decision I made later on

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Creation/customization, between the two

leveling up is an abstraction of character growth that can arguably be accomplished through a number of means that aren't tracked with ecks pees and numbers on a sheet

creation and customization is (optimally) establishing a character's identity, background and personality which should be roughly predictive of how they'll interact with the world around them going forward

 

[flyingjohn]

Can you remove leveling up and still retain the core rpg values?
Yes.
Can you remove character customization and retain he core rpg values?
No.

Level ups can be applied to anything and usually mean nothing except tedium in most non rpg games.
Without character customization there is no role in roleplaying.

 

[Bastardchops]

Which of these is more of an RPG? Game A or game B?

If I turn the light on or turn the light off, when is the light on? When it's on or off?

 

[Bruma Hobo]

People choosing level ups over customization believe The Linear RPG is an actual RPG, while NEO Scavenger isn't. This faction's comprised of dopamine addicts, weeaboos, retarded combatfags and storyfags who should be playing wargames and visual novels instead of further declining RPGs, and the occasional idiot not understanding what this thread's about.

Deport them all to the watch so we can finally achieve massive incline.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

storyfags who should be playing wargames

It don't add up, cap'n.

 

[octavius]

No, it simply means I am illiterate

Fixed.
You're welcum.

OK, maybe I didn't read the whole initial post carefully, but only responded to the poll.
In that specific, rather contrived case, customization would be more important, but in general leveling up is more important (to me at least).