An Erudite Discussion of Level Scaling

[MRY]

Well, the concept of "playing degenerately" is something I've thought about for a long time, but his label seemed a good one (and is the one used here).

I don't think games need to coerce players to play along with the fiction (though in a narrative game there are reasons to structure the systems to reinforce the fiction). What I do think is that games need to set up incentives that reward players for playing the game in a way that is "enriching." It is really, really easy to get players to play games in a miserable way. Players might not even be miserable while doing so because the Skinner box effects are so great (see, e.g., incremental/clicking flash games). In my view, it is basically morally wrong (!!) to design such a game. For example, if you have a design element that's like, "If the player spends extra time manually clicking the power up spell on each character, he is in a better position than if he uses a spell that powers up every character at once," then you are a bad person. You are basically encouraging players to become drudges, which is exactly the opposite of what escapist (or transcendent) entertainment should provide. So many game systems are like this: the way loot is handled in basically every RPG from Baldur's Gate forward, the way way power-up spells work, the way healing worked in Gold Box games, stat re-rolling, etc. etc. So many reward save scumming, rest spamming, inventory Tetris, item hoarding, skill spamming, dumpster diving, etc.

Players even want these features because game designers have spent a generation turning them into drudges. It becomes impossible for players to distinguish between what they enjoy and find worthwhile in the game and what the game tells them is valuable (see also modern education). "Players will be unable to go onto a new area because they feel compelled to try to find every bit of content in the current area" is not healthy. It's one thing if that's how players replay a game for the 100th time; but it's something else entirely that players feel compelled to work against their own progress in the game even the first time through. Game design should encourage players to think of exploration not as completionist surveying but as the thrill of advancement and seeing new vistas, etc.

Anyway, I'll stop waving my cane at the clouds.

 

[Roqua]

I think level scaling or non-level scaling is a moot point if the game has a shitty chardev system. Most games throw levels at you like gangbusters, and even when it seems they have a decent chargen and chardev the are made insignificant by the amount of levels you receive so quickly. For instance, FONV. Everything looks good on paper but the game was retard level easy and 90% of the feats where not necessary. I played it a year or two ago with a mod I know forget the name of that actually made the game difficult throughout. I had to take crafting feats to have ammunition, I had to take feats to increase my survivability. I didn't plan on doing this when I created my character, but out of a necessity to progress. It eventually got to a point where I was more powerful than the content I was doing, at which time I got bored and stopped. But any game, developed right, with an interesting and complex chargen and dev, will keep you interested throughout with the just the carrots of realizing your build and getting an upgraded piece of equipment.

Games that completely fail at this in my opinion are the rpgs made for consoles. They think the mmo style of equipping a new gear piece every three seconds is fucking awesome and scaling the enemies so you always have the same level of retardly easy enemies to be bored fighting because only a fucking monkey savage and a stupid kid could ever die in these shit games for children.

 

[Nael]

 

[hpstg]

I was about to do an elaborate post with quotes and the rest, but I realized that the conversation is way above my head in a lot of aspects. I still want to give my two cents about something though.

We refer to "level scaling" as a tool, mainly because HP exist as a system. HP and dice rolls started their lives as timesavers when simulation was either too expensive or impossible and designers had to wing it. That doesn't mean that it doesn't produce enjoyable and strategic situations, but I sincerely believe that there must be another way to do this by now. Even keeping a degree of RNG and doing just per-limb/area HP would go miles above any design that simply implements HP sponges.

I am not a designer, but the only problem I see with the approach above is how to make sure that the players "get it", how to make it transparent and therefore more satisfying. Let's take my lame Bruce Lee example from before.

These are obviously only physical stats and arbitrary selected for this example. But you could say that a successful bullet does 30 damage for example, which would make him not "special" at all, even if he was Bruce Lee and he could kick our asses. You could also include shock etc, making it even more interesting and multi-faceted. There must be something wrong either with me or this kind of approach to leveling, because I haven't seen it anywhere. Which means that either nothing like that exists, or if it does I have missed it somehow.

To my mind it makes so much sense though. When "similar" phenotypes are against each other (imagine the top expanded to feats of the mind too, or whatever you like), a compartmentalized approach like this one makes clear who is the strongest one, but it also leaves space for surprises where, depending on the simulation/RNG ranges, you can have upsets that make things interesting. At the same time, a white shark bite to the arm will most likely take my arm, or John Cena's, same as a bulldozer, a bullet, a piano falling etc. A system like that wouldn't need level scaling, because there are no trash mobs unless you invade an infant care unit. All "phenotypes" would be close enough to each other for the differences to make sense, but not that far apart that you have supermen (or you could have, but they would be different phenotypes). It would also have meaningful crippling effects (depending on the creature type, a spider doesn't give a shit if it loses a leg, a goblin does), but no HP bloat sack. And since the "HP" would go in small doses in each "compartment" of the characters, every encounter can be potentially lethal for everyone while maintaining that more advanced characters are clearly superior.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that total HP systems do count on the constant suspension on behalf of the player. If my mage throws a damn fireball in your face, you're dead unless you managed to protect yourself somehow. If my mage gets an icepick in the ear by the rogue he failed to detect, he should be dead. The problem you have with that now revolves around players dying like flies, but that really depends on encounter design and how your rounds work. In a more traditional turn-based RPG approach you could slow down the whole process of the round, inserting checks for posture, sound, and any other cues that might lead the PC realize what the NPCs are doing ("The mage is muttering something, quick the magic shield of whatever!", "There was another person with them, make a circle and keep the torches up"), or in multiplayer situations you could have these initial rounds before the "battle round" determine by a large margine the success of the attacks in the actual "battle round". Something like your mage being able to hear the rogue behind him and get a defense/dodge/parry bonus etc. It could also mean that an attacking player/NPC that "realizes" (which can be another check) that their intention is understood, can chose to do something else, or initiate a different type of movement in the next round, instead of keeping it up with the attack. Think of it on how real fighters/fencers get cues from the posture of their antagonists and anticipate the hits. It would make combat closer to an MMA fight, instead of the current thing that doesn't represent anything in either the real world or any interpretation of fantasy.

Behold! I am Karl Franz the Millionhitpointer! Hit upon me with thy tiny axes and despair!

I have the feeling a lot of times that we carry like baggage the only solution that people could have back then, which has now transformed and taken a life of its own. And before other Codexers start shitting on me, I'm not suggesting that HP systems are not fun or that they should be abolished, or that I didn't have fun games with systems like that. My only argument is that other approaches should be attempted at least.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Scaling can be fine if the content is tailored to support it while concealing its effects. If the narrative leads to substantial changes in the game world or state lending plausibility for stronger 'normal' enemies, then it can work.

Foe example, assume a simple village with a few local peasant bandits. If there is pretext for introduction of different and more powerful NPCs to slaughter (such as warring troop movement, revolt, etc.) then the same area could hold tougher generic enemies to fight because the narrative supports it... tougher enemies are introduced through narrative and others such as the peasant bandits are still around and defer to the now stronger PC.

 

[Roqua]

I like gated content, or difficult content available in ironman games. ToEE had a good difficulty level throughout. This may be because it was a pnp module before a crpg, but even on replays on ironman picking the right time to go to emorry meadows can be tricky, etc. Also, on first play throughs you don't know, but assume, big monsters will have good stuff so you still have the risk/reward thrill as well as the unknown thrill. It is quite thrilling as you may have assumed. I know I have to fight the urge to go save the prince and take his crap, etc, to not become more powerful inorganically. It is such a shame all the summer boys avoided or bashed ToEE when it came out. Nothing would be better than proven competent game developers making crpgs based on a pretty good pnp system and well received pnp modules.

I am assuming most people aren't huge pussies and save scum through games or read walkthroughs before their first play through (which should always be ironman since ironman can make even shitty games decently entertaining).

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Scaling is one of the many problems with "levels" in RPGs. The whole idea of going from a normal weakling to a demi-god is terrible. There is a reason why you don't see this kind of a power curve in movies or literature, as it is inherently silly and leads to all sorts of bad things. Obviously, growing in power is cool but it should be limited in terms of absolute power. Just look to real life for inspiration. A master soldier doesn't have 10 times the life energy of an ordinary man, and doesn't shoot for 20 times the damage. A master swordsman doesn't have the strength to do 10 times the damage with each strike as a new trainee and doesn't wield a magical sword that does another 10 times the damage. No, becoming good at something just means you have a better understanding of it, and have access to more moves/maneuvers/techniques. A much better way to model this than hitpoints/damage/armor class would be to have a complex combat system and getting more experience would result in gaining new moves/skills/abilities. These abilities would be used together, so using one would set up another, and then allow the third, and so on. So a highly experienced warrior would still have the hitpoints and damage of a regular human being, and every early level monster would still be dangerous if you mess up your technique and skills. Now scaling is no longer an issue.

 

[nikolokolus]

Scaling is one of the many problems with "levels" in RPGs. The whole idea of going from a normal weakling to a demi-god is terrible. There is a reason why you don't see this kind of a power curve in movies or literature, as it is inherently silly and leads to all sorts of bad things. Obviously, growing in power is cool but it should be limited in terms of absolute power. Just look to real life for inspiration. A master soldier doesn't have 10 times the life energy of an ordinary man, and doesn't shoot for 20 times the damage. A master swordsman doesn't have the strength to do 10 times the damage with each strike as a new trainee and doesn't wield a magical sword that does another 10 times the damage. No, becoming good at something just means you have a better understanding of it, and have access to more moves/maneuvers/techniques. A much better way to model this than hitpoints/damage/armor class would be to have a complex combat system and getting more experience would result in gaining new moves/skills/abilities. These abilities would be used together, so using one would set up another, and then allow the third, and so on. So a highly experienced warrior would still have the hitpoints and damage of a regular human being, and every early level monster would still be dangerous if you mess up your technique and skills. Now scaling is no longer an issue.

You just perfectly described Chaosium's approach to RPG design (Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, BRP, etc.) Your hit points are somewhat static, but you get better at parrying, dodging, etc. as your skills improve. A critical hit from a scrub can still get through a defense and devastate a "heroic" level character in one shot.

Frankly I wish more CRPGs would use this model, but I also understand that it significantly cuts down on the power fantasy angle most games (and gamers) seem to be aiming for and designing a video game around this core mechanic might be retail poison.

 

[oldmanpaco]

I like a bracketed leveled encounter design.

For example an encounter could have a lvl range of 8-12. If a low lvl character (>6) entered the area it would be lvl 8 . If a high lvl character (<14) entered the area it would be lvl 12. All the other lvls would fall in between based on a algorithm.

And by leveled encounter I mean more/different enemies rather than more HPs.

 

[hpstg]

Most of you hit the fact that it's the HP bloat that kills a lot of systems and tanks gameplay. The trick is how to avoid that while encounters and long campaigns are possible. I wish I knew some programming so that I could do what I wrote here, even as a text based system.

 

[lefthandblack]

Fuck level scaling, fuck boss fights, fuck story too. At this point I find that the only games that I enjoy anymore a either pure sims or pure sandboxes.

Give me a well fleshed out world with well fleshed out factions that naturally oppose each other (or not!). Little mini-stories are great, but to hell with any overarching EPIC!111 narrative bullshit.

 

[Hobo Elf]

If you're going to have level scaling then it's better to not even have levels in the first place imo. Just go the Zelda route or something where all the character upgrades are new weapons and armor, but don't waste my time by trying to fool me that the level ups I'm getting are actually progressing my character in any meaningful way.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

The best option, of course, is a well done encounter table in a way that all area of an open world games could feel dangerous.

But properly done level scaling, at least what is usually applied by mods in Bethesda games, might actually works better than none of it at all, at least in open world/non-linear RPG. Example being bandits have maximum level with access to limited, mediocre equipment. Monsters are scaled to its relative threat based on lore, etc. The problem with no level scaling in modern open world games is a question of balance.

If you balanced 'new' areas on main quests, people who thoroughly explore an area will find the other area too easy, while balancing it around doing everything in area before moving on will result in people complaining new are being to hard and side quests being mandatory. At worst you end up with badly designed 'non-linear' blobber where if don't grind or use broken classes, the game might as well be a linear game.

 

[vivec]

The problem with Level Scaling isn't the scaling. It's the levelling.

 

[Hobo Elf]

The best option, of course, is a well done encounter table in a way that all area of an open world games could feel dangerous.

But properly done level scaling, at least what is usually applied by mods in Bethesda games, might actually works better than none of it at all, at least in open world/non-linear RPG. Example being bandits have maximum level with access to limited, mediocre equipment. Monsters are scaled to its relative threat based on lore, etc. The problem with no level scaling in modern open world games is a question of balance.

If you balanced 'new' areas on main quests, people who thoroughly explore an area will find the other area too easy, while balancing it around doing everything in area before moving on will result in people complaining new are being to hard and side quests being mandatory. At worst you end up with badly designed 'non-linear' blobber where if don't grind or use broken classes, the game might as well be a linear game.

So what's the point of me leveling up and becoming, supposedly, stronger, when enemies scale to their relative threat level? If it's always going to be relative then you may as well eliminate the level up process since it ceases to be meaningful.

 

[Mozg]

Shallow post here but I really like RPGs that have some kind of "once you get enough XP you have the option of training to get your powerupper." (and analogous systems for loot, etc.)

In this way I'm basically doing my own level-scaling, where I stay the same level as long as I feel I am able to handle shit in a fun way and I'm still interested in the toolset I currently have. Most of the tinkering trying to get your level scaling or static enemies to feel just right can go right out the window in terms of dev effort.

Note that this exposes shit games where the "progress" is the reason for playing, which is probably why you don't see it that much.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

So what's the point of me leveling up and becoming, supposedly, stronger, when enemies scale to their relative threat level? If it's always going to be relative then you may as well eliminate the level up process since it ceases to be meaningful.

As I said, for each enemy category there is an upper limit on which each could become stronger. In my opinion rather than badly designed no level scaling system where everything is either too easy or too hard depending of how much thing you do before moving on between areas. That way it beats the sense of playing open world games in which adversaries level power compared to you matters.

Of course in the end of the day, good enemies table a.k.a good designed non-scalig systems wins.

 

[vivec]

The best option, of course, is a well done encounter table in a way that all area of an open world games could feel dangerous.

But properly done level scaling, at least what is usually applied by mods in Bethesda games, might actually works better than none of it at all, at least in open world/non-linear RPG. Example being bandits have maximum level with access to limited, mediocre equipment. Monsters are scaled to its relative threat based on lore, etc. The problem with no level scaling in modern open world games is a question of balance.

If you balanced 'new' areas on main quests, people who thoroughly explore an area will find the other area too easy, while balancing it around doing everything in area before moving on will result in people complaining new are being to hard and side quests being mandatory. At worst you end up with badly designed 'non-linear' blobber where if don't grind or use broken classes, the game might as well be a linear game.

So what's the point of me leveling up and becoming, supposedly, stronger, when enemies scale to their relative threat level? If it's always going to be relative then you may as well eliminate the level up process since it ceases to be meaningful.

Precisely, the right way to do this is to have a constant threat level. The advancement should be reflected in the skills and assets and not in the "level". Give the player more abilities and spells and items. That's it.

 

[Orobis]

To hell with level scaling, it's just developer laziness. You need to feel a sense of progression in RPG's, isn't that half the reason why we play them?

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

So what's the point of me leveling up and becoming, supposedly, stronger, when enemies scale to their relative threat level? If it's always going to be relative then you may as well eliminate the level up process since it ceases to be meaningful.

It is meaningful, in the sense that it provides players with a positive reinforcement at random intervals.

 

[Hobo Elf]

It is meaningful, in the sense that it provides players with a positive reinforcement at random intervals.

That's what drugs are for.

 

[animlboogy]

More RPGs should have some level of reactivity based on the PC's reputation and ability. The problem of exploring low level content when you're overpowered isn't so bad if you get to see funny events like people laying down their arms and pleading, or running off to find someone who can actually take you out (which is level scaling, yeah, but at least it's in the context of the game instead of bandits wearing rare magical armor or whatever).

Instead, this all gets solved with the most boneheaded systems possible. Bloat the HP, make them do more damage, give them better armor. Undermine the whole point of becoming stronger. Combine that with most RPGs going with cooldowns and regen rates for just about every single thing that used to be a finite resource, and you have a recipe for an utterly meaningless experience. Trash mobs don't slowly wear you down and force you to make interesting decisions, they're just literally wasting your time. Might as well go for a walk, at least you get something out of it. You might even run into a better random encounter than anything in the game if you live in a shit neighborhood.

 

[hpstg]

That's what drugs are for.

A tangible sense of progress and reward is essential for a game to be interesting.

 

[Ashenai]

There are many ways of giving rewards and showing progress that aren't traditional level-ups. Deus Ex has a very solid sense of progression, with multiple reward systems that all do a great Skinner box impression. And yet, when playing on Realistic, at the very end of a game you can still get one-shotted by a starting enemy.

It's not the perfect example because it's not open world, but if it were, there would be nothing stopping you from completing the stages in any order. Earlier stages would certainly be easier, but there are no trash mobs, and you can't win any fights by sitting a five-year-old down and telling her to hammer a button until all the bad guys fall down.

 

[Average Manatee]

Been playing Geneforge series recently and it really is a breath of fresh air after the endless level-scaled shitshows that gets shoveled out nowadays.

Want to go anywhere? Fucking go and try. Want to kill anyone important? It's probably supported, they'll be a difficult fight that you'd expect from the character's position and you'll get some great loot. Can't do it? Tough, come back later. Game become "too easy" after leveling? Combat is fast, enemies don't respawn, and clearing whole areas can be done in like 5 minutes. To hell with "but the player will lose interest if every fight isn't an epic 5-minute match of mindlessly punching each other's HP pools in the face" bullshit, if your game is doing that then you fucked up way before you added level scaling.

There is no good excuse for level scaling. Any excuse is a band-aid coverup for poor game mechanics, poor overall design, or a desire to coddle shitty players. And let me hand out a further fuck you to devs trying to hide level scaling by the "only do it the first time a player enters an area" trick and other similar methods.

Spoiler

Exceptions given for the "Enemy party specifically hired to ambush you gets stronger if your enemy sees you are stronger and therefore hires better thugs" and stuff like that, which makes logical in-universe sense. Even then direct level scaling is shit, create unique tiers of encounters instead.