Why character levels in RPGs are STUPID!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- When I think about character levels in role-playing games I come to the realisation that they are USELESS, and I'm happy to explain why.
The SWORDS! shirt: teespring.com/...
My favourite Tabletop Time session: • "OGRE-CONFIDENT" - Med...
The Cogent Roleplay RPG system: cogentroleplay....
Nerdarchy: / nerdarchy
Music backing
Celtic Impulse - Celtic by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommon...)
Source: incompetech.com...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Thanks for the shout out greatly appreciated. Also thanks for noticing the upgrades.
-Nerdarchist Dave
My pleasure mate, you guys are doing some great stuff!
You cant dis Shad for bagging out level cause he gave you a shout out. Hahaha.
Shadiversity I'd love to take a crack at your game with you.
Nerdarchist Dave
Sverdhugr Kveykva One of my favorite games is classless and lacks leveling for the most part- Mutants and Masterminds 3e.
Nerdarchist Dave
Nerdarchy trying to logicaly answer my nonsense. well, ignore me im just being silly
Shad: If you see 10 guys coming toward you, you're screwed!
Wizard: Are they all in a 20 foot radius?
Just.Fireball.
Just.Fireball.
JUST.FIREBALL.
-JoCat
Ho your approaching me? Even tho you saw me lay exactly 12 trap your approaching me?
10 guys : we can't beat you if we aren't close enough
Then approache as much as you like >:)
They all die victory!
@@paille-boy Nice Jojo reference.
Annoyed a dm who threw a horde of zombies at us with this tactic. To be fair, it was kinda the obvious answer that he seemed to be oblivious to.
Me: Yes BUT we're in a mine shaft...can we avoid making ourselves bullets ?
I love how you can start an RPG as a full grown adult and you're level 1. Like, what did you do your entire life that earned you 0 exp?!
Because being level 1 means you have basic training in a class. If you are a normal person, you would be a level 0 because you never trained the skills needed to be an adventurer.
@TheBrazilRules Actually that isn't completely accurate, such as you can have a blacksmith and politican that have levels, both of which are not adventurers. Also, a lot of the "skills" are things that could be aquired while being an ordinary person. Such as brawling, alchemy, search, stealth, etc. Most times the lvl 1 gimick is just bs to try and make people go through introductory stuff.
If you make a game and want to slap level in professions, you can. But I am talking about why you start as level 1 in almost every RPG, and that is because how D&D originally defined levels. And in D&D a character's level is his profeciency in a certain class.
Generally a levelling system in an RPG is tied to your profession/skillset, which means it's not skill in a 'general' sense, but specifically your skill at that one specific profession.
Games that don't use character classes tend not to use levelling systems either.
(instead you tend to earn points as you play that can be exchanged for improvements in much more specific skills. - D&D actually combines both systems to some extent, especially in 3rd edition)
One of the better examples for making sense of this is the wizard.
A level 1 wizard is just competent enough to risk going out by themselves.
But magic in most settings requires long, arduous, rather... Esoteric studies.
The closest realworld analogy of this would be someone studying science, or medicine or the like.
That's a 7 year study, and at the end of it you're really only at the most basic level of competence for the subject in question.
This doesn't mean you're incapable of anything if you aren't first level yet.
indeed, 3rd edition D&D here also provides more clues for this in how it handles cantrips - a first level wizard might only know a handful of proper spells, but they know ALL the cantrips.
This suggests that they probably learnt all of them in the course of their studies.
Considered further, a level 1 wizard typically knows about a half dozen level 1 spells, and a bunch of cantrips.
Does that sound like someone with NO experience at all?
no. No it doesn't.
Clearly, it sounds like someone that would have spent a lot of time with partial knowledge, that doesn't quite qualify them to be a level 1 character.
This applies equally well to other classes (and other games) it's just that the sheer amount of knowledge a level 1 wizard is implied to have is actually quite extensive and would have taken many, many years to learn compared to other classes.
In other words, it's not that a level 1 character has NO experience, it's just that there is no system for measuring having less than level 1 experience.
If you were to take this into account you could say that being level 1 is more akin to being level 10 or 20 in a more general idea of 'experience.'
a baby. 0 xp.
halfling rogue, 20 years old, mercenary. 0 xp.
logic?
WHAT IS THAT?!
Mustafa. Level 100 Dervish. Wields a falchion sword.
Indiana Jones. Level 40 Archaeologist. Has a gun.
Jones had his friends, Smuth and Wesson !
Ok
Fu fact: that scene was supposed to be longer but Harrison Ford had to go to the bathroom so he changed the scene on the spot
@@keepermovin5906 He was ill that day, but yeah.
@@SuMaSLo yeah he was ill and had the runs
What if Rasputin just figured out how to grind levels to a point where he was beyond any human, it would makes sense why he was so hard to kill and explain the miracles he supposedly did. He was just a high level human cleric with an obscene amount of HP.
Shad: a dagger to the neck will kill anyone
Achilles: Hold my heel!
*stabs heel with dagger.*
°_°
Rasputin: hold my vodka
Beowolf, hold my mead
Achilles: Wait, no give it back! NOOO!- **dead**
Would the dagger actually puncture his neck? He can only die from the heel, but can he be wounded in other places?
If you want to be the strongest being in all RPG all you have to do is!
100 Push-Ups!
100 Sit-Ups!
100 Squats!
Then a Ten kilometer Run!
Every single day!
LIES!!!
You must have sort of secret that you are hiding about how you gained your incredible powers!!!
Geothermal1159 okay okay okay you also should never use air conditioning there you go
Twice on Days! And once per Night!
yes
But then you will defeat everyone with one punch! Where's the challenge in that? One punch? DAMN IT!!!!
One thing I've always loved about Gothic 1 and 2 is how it handles leveling up melee skills. When you level up enough into, say, your one-handed skill, you will go from novice to fighter. Your animations actually change at that point. Then later you'll upgrade from fighter to master, and your animations change again. Each set of animations are more proficient at combat than the previous set. I've never seen any other RPG do this, and it's a cool way to represent a character's gradual growth in skill level, instead of just having the same animations the whole way through with passive upgrades.
Yes but gothic is a very very good game. I actually prefer 1 over 2 just for the atmosphere but I love them both...
witcher 1 also has something like that
Bathory \m/
That sounds really cool.
I really loved in Gothic 1 and 2 how you could directly see the experience the character had gained just by his combat stance and moves. Really clumsy as a novice and absolutely self assured and badass as a master. Great game!
Any RPG player's religion: Everyone higher than you has no life and everyone below you is a noob
I don't think that's a religion just a world view.
In general, videogame RPGs reward time spent playing.
@ I think Shad's point is: it would be refreshing to play a video game (or table top) RPG where actually role-playing and exploring the world/universe/story was the reward. For a table-top RPG much like that, try the R. Talsorian games: Cyberpunk 2020 and Mekton, they are level-free, with possible but very slight skill/attribute progression. The focus is instead upon utilizing your character (who starts with pretty much all they need to succeed or at least survive long enough to get something better) to his/her fullest potential.
I’m an RPG atheist
@@n08le73 Dark Souls has a levelling system that relies entirely off of your skill/attribute progression. Each point you put into a skill is also added to your character's overall level. On top of that, skill progression really only determine how well you can use certain gear/spells/items. Like, you could wield a massive hammer all you want, but if you don't have enough strength for it, you're gonna be barely able to lift it up, which is why I love Dark Souls' level progression system. It encourages build freedom and thought.
1:08
Adventurer one "Wait hold up guys. this orcs a really High level."
Adventurer two "how do you know?"
Adventurer one "He's got on a big horned helmet with a lot of armor. the other orcs had no helmets and very little armor."
Adventurer two "(shrugs) makes sense."
And there's always his purple name tag.
Or as we used to ask the DM "Who has the biggest hat?"
It has its logic!
The stronger gets the better equipment (directly or beating the owner)
(The alpha lion has the best mane, ...)
What a happy coincidence that the Pokémon protagonist's house is right where the low level wild Pokémon are.
aowkoakwowka
It makes sense though right? Like obviously people dont want a 30 foot tall fire breathing dragon in the desert full of mythical golems burning their house down. So live in a quiet forest full of birds and squirrels and stuff
@@Jpeg.g But there's also houses where the stronger ones are. What if the protagonist lived there? That was my point.
@@Bolpat but they are few and far between and are usually owned by people with very strong Pokémon. Someone starting a family or moving would not have the time to train or catch such powerful pokemon to defend themselves
How Pokémon games work would have to be completely changed in order to have pokemon of any level appear anywhere. In Sword and Shield, it was possible to run into higher level pokemon but how it worked was kinda bs (couldn't even try to catch them).
"make the player sense that can be killed in any battle"
Dark souls: thank dude
Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice > Dark Souls
@@spin.chicken Sekiro is a shitty one trick pony, you are either in it or not. At least Dark soul give you more alternatives
In WFRP 2nd ed, this also applies and its a tabletop. You can be an high tier warrior and all it takes to kill you is a lucky shot from a goblin archer.
@@spin.chicken sekiro is... Diferent. The combat sistem isnt so free as DS, but is much more realistic. Also in sekiro you only have a Katana and "japanese" kind of enemies, what makes esier to the developers polish it. I dont think sekiro so "rpg" kind... Is so less freedom in pair with Dark Souls, DND, Elder Scrolls, Diablo, PoE, etc....
@@maxentirunos Dark Souls has the exact problem we talking about, it has the potential for grinding to overlevel for a boss, the boss can still kill you but you will do more damage and survive longer just because you grinded souls for stats.
Sekiro the way to get more hp or dmg is to kill bosses/mini-bosses.
Dark Souls is the same, you dodge, block/parry and wait for an opening you have been waiting for regardless of which weapon you use or playstyle, its defend and wait for a tiny window to attack.
Sekiro you dodge, block, parry, mikiri counter the same as dark souls but you also need to attack relentlessly to create the best chances for damage, not wait for a moment in an attack pattern
"It's over, Anankin! I have the higher level!"
Undead: Uses Death Touch... Player loses 5 levels. It's very effective.
Rust Monster: "You underestimate my power."
In my opinion, the level grinders are evil!
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 darth touch
Brilliant.
how mmos work: grind to god-tier power level, earn renown across the world...still get asked to rescue a kitten from a tree..
what mmo are you playing? i mean wow does things like that sometimes but that's usually played for laughs rather than played completely straight.
my MMO hasn't asked me to rescue a kitten from a tree since I was level 10. at level 100, I'm being asked to face half dragon liches, newly ascended godlings, ancient vampire lords, helping one lich overthrow another lich so that I don't have to worry about either liches armies of living or dead, averting End of Days apocalypses from Hilter-esque god powered Dragons...I've saved a god of death from two other gods that were trying to take over his realm to avoid being destroyed themselves, helped a set of demi-gods murder thier 'father' and take over his plane when his plans threatened to undo creation...yeah. not rescuing kittens from trees.
it was a VERY tall tree
looks like TREE out of four people don't know what a joke is.
on the internet there is no such thing as tone so if your joke is not obvious (and lame pun out of 5 people don't believe it is) people will not think it is a joke. especially if your "joke" sounds like something someone would say unironically given the context which this indeed is an example of.
KILLED TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND GOBLINS
*goblin slayer intensifies*
By his logic, you should be just as incompetent after killing 200.000 as you were after killing your first...
He was advocating for increasing skills. I would guess that you would be very skilled at dodging, blocking, and using your weapon of choice after killing 200,000 goblins by his logic.
Never enough murdered gobos, squished by your murderhobos!
@@Brekner more like you'd know how to kill gobbos better but if you get stabbed you'll die as easily as you'd die when you started your goblin genocide
@@titanscerw damn man goblins like to live too
"What, you think grinding takes skill?"
Well, it takes *A* skill; patience.
People who have hit the level cap in an especially grind-y game are respected for the sheer dedication it takes to get there.
Yeah, sure, but that skill is limited by something that isn't a skill: how much free time you have
@@monke12354 the amount of free time time you have only limits the amount of time it takes to get there not if you can get there at all.
Reminds me of the times when I was considered an OG for holding the max rank in Halo reach. People really thought I was an elite player... funny thing is, I pretty much suck at competetive games. I just had enough time on my hand to reach that rank with a friend who loved to play Halo online...
@@monke12354 Actually quite the opposite. It's MORE impressive when achieved by people who have very little free time at all.
I guess this is why Monster Hunter is so addictive. The skills, strategies, and techniques you learn helps towards conquering the monsters. No character levels; Just your gear, skill, wit, techniques, and strategies.
Yeah and its like your Hunter Ranking shows where your expected expertise and equipment available in these things should be almost like a level does in other games... Uh- oh. Arbitrary number requirements? Equipment restrictions till higher HR? Gatekeeping until the expected results are given or enough of the best equipment and items are jammed in my pockets that I can brute force my way through it? Huh, funny how these systems that are so different, aren't actually all that different at all.
HR IS LVLS
hr is based on feats, you could kill 100 anjananth and your hr wont budge
@@jonah.pimentel5647 ....Um, what? So, you're saying that if you kill each monster ONE TIME you'll be max HR. Bad news, no. You can have every feat in the game complete, and you'll still have to play a good deal to cap HR. What in the shit are you talking about?
@@jessieshores4865 HR isn't really levels, not in the traditional sense anyway. Going up in hero rank doesn't give you any mechanical benefit. A HR1 character will have the exact same base stats as a HR999 character. Even taking into account armour sets, at a certain point you stop being able to craft better gear YET your HR can still raise.
HR in Monster Hunter is basically a show of how much you've played the game and what monsters you as a player have killed. It isn't a display of how powerful the character itself is, just how good you are as a player.
In a good pen-and-paper, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GRIND. LEVELING IS BASED ON COMPLETING CERTAIN TASKS.
Plus, satisfaction REALLY comes from taking a realistically weak character and genuinely working for a long term to achieve your starting goals.
I think he was talking about video games when he mentioned grinding. Or do people actually grind in pen & paper games? I can hardly imagine that as even remotely interesting for the players, even ignoring the huge amount of time required.
Unfortunately, I can do more than just imagine it. There's a term for what I've seen on occasion: the term 'experience whore' means 'a player that turns everything into a side quest for more XP'; A.K.A. 'the player that constantly grinds in an tabletop RPG, usually much to the annoyance of everyone else at the table'. Yeah, it is a problem, and it is common enough that there's slang for it.
Dark Souls.
You don't NEED to grind to finish the game, but if you do... you may suffer less.
Depends, there are some really op low level playthroughs you can cobble together. Royalty in DeS and Pyro in DaS can carry you through 80% through their respective games if you know which gear to grab. lol
You definitely need to level up to do NG+ though
@@JoshArgentine You underestimate the head on wall approach of some gamers, in DS3 i fought sister Friede at SL 60 and after almost 10 hours won. In NG+ i beat her at SL 99 in about 16 hours because I was too lazy to grind.
or more depending how often you die during grinding
Yeah. I think it has more to do with how well the game was designed than whether or not you have levels. Grinding for upgrade material in Dark Souls is hella annoying tho :P
Shad: "Levels in RPGs are stupid and should be removed."
Paper Mario: "Write that down! WRITE THAT DOWN!"
AaAAAaaAAaAAaaAAAAAaAAAAAaaAAa
Shadowrun: "Levels? What are you talking about?" 😋
Real criminal :
Im going to mug you !
Me:
Hold on , i need to level up one more level to have enough Hit Points. Be right back .
*comes back from grinding*
Me:
Ah ha! My power level is over 9000 !
A very cautious Hero (anime): Trains in the Create A Character Menu... Comes out with a 15 level head start.
OVER 9000!!!
9000?!?! That CAN'T be right!
Semi-Perfect Cell vs Vegeta in a nutshell
You levelist! How dare you invalidate my experience points!!!!
Stats don't care about your feelings!
I think so!
@Shadiversity Thanks for all of the great content and the shout out. I really enjoyed the video game "Die by the Sword" for the skill based combat that didn't require grinding. I will definitely check out you RPG rules ~Nate the Nerdarch (not shown in the video example above)
Yes, because disagreeing with somebody about levels is totally comparable to the disproportionate discrimination and physical violence that marginalised people face.
Lighten up, toots.
I've heard this before, and here is my objection:
It depends what the RPG is trying to achieve. If it's a historical RPG, or is representing something like Game of Thrones, sure. It should be like that, no levels. And a bear or a lion should normally kill a man 1vs1. A griffin or dragon should not even be a contest with the whole party killed, period.
HOWEVER, because most RPG happen in fictional worlds, that is not always true. A regular dwarf soldier, like the guard you find in the entrance of a dwarven city, probably has higher strength and constitution than, say, Galadriel. But he is NOT harder to kill. Because Galadriel, being somebody who has been living since the stars spawned, is more powerful. Has literally more level.
If you try to represent something like Beowulf's life, he cannot have the same kind of "hit points" a normal human of his size has. He literally fought underwater for a week. Killed giants with bare hands just to prove a point.
Same can be said about Hercules twelve labours, Cú Chulainn battle to defeat by himself the entire army of Connatch in Táin Bó Cúailnge, a battle that lasted months, or Fingolfin fighting platoons of balrogs that flee in terror when they see him.
So yes, for a more grounded-in-reality storytelling, no levels is better. But for epic, mythic tales, which is the kind of tales D&D is best suited for, then levels are useful.
"You would die if you faced a goblin army even with 400 hp". What about 401 hp?
What if a character finds enchanted armor of neck protection?
Anthony Carpenter and knee protection.
Enemies will start throwing their pommels, I assume.
If it's Achilles it won't matter... he needs ankle protection!
I just assumed that the hit points mean that neck stab didn't land as well as it otherwise would have on a weaker person, not just dude to toughness but a bit of subconscious positioning
A stab in the heart is still fatal. A good hit between the legs, on the knee or elsewhere can incapacitate you long enough to place an easy killing blow. Is your head protected ? What about your face ? Maybe that armour prevent you from wearing any head protection at all...
Lv 1 Adventurer. Lv35 Hero. This is how fantasy role-playing works
Check out RuneQuest / Mythras and similar systems for an alternative.
Ultima Online
Depends on what you go for; pretty sure with the Baldur's gate era DnD, level 1 is adventurer, level 10
I've found in my GMing since the early 80s that easy death does ramp up the excitement but it has some major effects. If you want major heroics you often get no so much better tactics but very cowardly players. Good for a horror game but not a heroic one. I've also seen the Players invest much more emotionally in a character whose likely to last a while. Far more character development and actual roleplaying. I've also many long range goals and complex relationships with NPCs if they think their character will last a while
If Aerith died in the sector 7 slums nobody would've cared.
People would be less likely to play the game to its fullest if they knew that 1 wrong move ruins hours of work
Kingdom Come: Deliverance did the progression system really well.
It was absolutely brilliant.
When you train with Bernard twice and become literal jesus
At least it wasn’t grindy
When you get plate armor you become immortal, and you can get it very early
I've never played KC:D. Would you mind explaining?
So what do you think of a game like Breath of The Wild? Character progression comes mostly through your own skill as a player, but also through acquiring better weapons and armor, and finally through, yes, expanding your health bar. But at the same time, the same 3-4 hearts you start the game with is enough to beat the Big Bad and save the world..if YOU are good enough.
Hearts lets you survive getting stabbed with a sword and blown up with a laser beam. So it would still be in the area of stupid as presented in the video.
+Nionivek
In BotW, health is given as a magical blessing from a goddess. It's more realistic than gaining insane toughness from beating up ten thousand monsters and gaining "experience".
I mean yeah, magic doesn't exist in real life, but that's why it's a fantasy setting. Logically, a fantasy setting would still work in the same way as the real world, _except_ where magic, supernatural phenomena, or explicitly different laws of physics are directly involved.
My point is, heart containers and stamina vessels make sense in-setting. Leveling up the traditional way does not.
Monster hunter is also a good example
Shad: . . . If a player makes a stupid choice that gets them killed
Me: LEEROOOOOOOOOY JEEEEEEEENKINS
Shad:... yeah you're dead
But... at least he have a chicken
Lol that reminds me of this one time when I was playing Halo PVP (I think it was Reach) and my team were all on voicechat and they had been talking tactics and whatnot, and I had stepped away to grab something to eat. When I returned I heard what they were doing, saw that I actually had chicken and thought "Holy shit this is PERFECT!!!" So I literally ran into the midst of the enemy team shouting "LEEEEEEEROOOOOOOOY JEEEEEEEENKIIIIIIINS!!!" Got 3 kills out of 4 enemy team members and died, and my teammates picked off the last guy. It was so sweet. The best part was that I could hear my teammates saying "OH FUCK" when they realized what I was doing!
Tupac got shot like 9 times... I wonder what his max HP was?
Nick Terrell 50 cent.
Nick Terrell Pick an RPG with guns and roll the dice, he has more than an average roll.
He has normal HP but got hit by 9 glancing blows.
The shooter only rolled low numbers
Yeah. Wrong black guy.
3:15 "that takes away from tactics." It doesn't, actually. You can choose to fight that enemy at a time when you need to use tactics, or you can choose to get stronger than it and overpower it. It doesn't take away from the tactics, it adds one.
That... takes away from tactics... as people naturally then are more inclined to level up and overpower... its easier... it takes away from needing to actually think while you fight...
In a related vein, I remember when I was playing Skyrim, you start out with the higher-level Dwarven and Elven equipment being very rare, but as you progress, enemy equipment keeps leveling up as well, until you start running into run-of-the-mill bandits with incredibly rare and powerful equipment all the time when you start reaching the higher levels. That really started taking me out of the game after a while.
That's Oblivion you're thinking of.. or modded skyrim. The bandits there I've never seen have anything above steel and studded leather outside the occasional chieftain with Nordic gear.
Yeah... except you don't. Bandits, with the exception of chiefs, don't get high level equipment beyond maybe steel plate. You're thinking of Oblivion.
I've noticed this a few times in Skyrim (I've encountered bandits using Elven weapons) but more with bartering. At the beginning, I could only buy low-level items from shopkeepers and the like, but as I progressed, no matter where I was in the world and even going back to places where Dwemer and Elven items hadn't been available before, suddenly EVERYONE is selling high-level weapons. As convenient as this is, I find it takes me out of the game because it doesn't feel realistic. Having Dwarven weapons suddenly available in Whiterun miles from any Dwemer ruins just feels odd.
Skyrim is one of the best though, levels don't matter much nor there are any fixed classes - you play the way you see fit and get better at what you do. But the Daggerfall fans will tell you otherwise, so it's still personal preference.
You must not have encountered many leveling or progression systems. No matter your preference, there are some awful trash systems out there.
"Pen and paper roleplaying games..."
"PEN and paper"
You daring rogue.
Ubetcha Well lol! all decisions are final! no stat upgrades! everything will be written in PEN! lol
They're called Pen and Paper games even if you're using a pencil to mark your stats.
I literally laughed out loud there. I can relate, one of the best dnd tools is an eraser. 2nd only to a pencil.
Yeah I don't see a lot of games that utilize wood-product anymore either.
I like how you used the lvl image of Diablo 3.
In Diablo 3 I am currently lvl 1100+
Enemies literally die without me having to touch them.
Oh level systems.. How I love/hate you.
If it wasn't leveling, it would be skills. If it wasn't either, it would be gear. If it wasn't that, it would be some other metric. If it was completely free of any such thing, it would come down to purely skill based games (including the skill of creativity) which means you essentially have unleveled the playing field, and thus some people will always have an advantage or disadvantage no matter how hard they try. Now I can never be more than mediocre. Now the game is not fun, not accessible, and has alienated a much larger and wider audience.
_"Enemies literally die without me having to touch them."_
Wait, what? What difficulty are you playing at?
Would love to hear your thoughts on this:
Imo character levels do something important that you kind of miss if you don't use it, and that is immediate player feedback. Leveling systems give the player a direct way to gauge their capabilities, and when you give that discretion up to the DM (or just don't include them for a digital game), for me it kind of takes the assurance I get when making a decision, which is not always a good thing. It's like being asked to give an answer to a question you don't have. If your version of difficulty still changes based on how long you're playing a game, then all you've done is removed the indicators, while still asking the player to do the same things as if they did have them. Why not just have them to keep things clear and then ask the player to strategize?
Think about how humans get better at anything: repetition. We literally grind everyday learning new things, so while I don't expect killing 3000 goblins should make you good at killing orcs, it *should* make you better at killing things than if you hadn't. But imagine treating everything in a game like that, that you only get better at the things you do (in a digital game, a coding nightmare). You'd have players literally living another life, unless you decide they suddenly know some skill after an arbitrary amount of game time. In that case, you're grinding plot instead of grinding levels. And, if you make it so everyone has whatever skills they are going to have at the beginning of the game, then you're just playing *a* character, not *your* character, which I feel is the essence of an RPG.
Now I think nixing levels is fine if you're wanting the game to feel more like real life, but more often than not I find it confusing and less fun (also like real life) to not have a way to understand my characters capabilities in this genre of game. Instead of thinking of levels as a measure of strength, think of it more as a measure of potential, where the higher you are, the more you've reached your potential, which can be different than just being strong.
Of course, level system do have the issue of stagnating difficulty, but I think it sounds worse if you're just considering things from a numbers standpoint. Killing a bunch of mobs to then one shot a badass boss is a problem, but that more of a bad game problem than a bad system problem. Good games mitigate the numbers game by integrating strategic elements, like skills, buffs, debuffs, magic to circumvent just out statting the opponent. Better games give those strategic elements to the enemies too, and scale their capabilities independent of the player. All in all, level systems fall short if you're just using the numbers, but leveling can provide different things than strictly numbers if you think laterally about it.
A solution to that problem is that before doing a certain task, you could allow an optional quest of intelligence gathering, talking with certain NPCs that would tell the player more or less directly what they lack to confidently defeat that enemy/kind of enemy, which would be relatively straighforward to incorporate in a videogame, but maby some GMs could find it a bit difficult. Also it would keep making the game more and more strategy-oriented, which is just what a large portion of players don't want.
Yeah, you make a good point and it would be challenging to come up with a real solution, but my hypothesis is that it's a problem to players that had already gotten accustomed to the leveling system. If I only ever played breath of the Wild, where running away from any fight you take on is really really easy, expecting to lose resources just "testing the grounds" to see if something is feasable or not at the current level would not be a novelty or an hindrance, it would just be part of expected gameplay.
I'd like to agree because I like the way you are trying to approach realism but...
If you've ever participated in a sport or activity like martial arts or archery or even billiards then you know that your body will build muscle memory and muscle density based on the action that you have been repetitively "farming" and your aptitude increases along with it.
In billiards, your hand eye coordination and muscle memory plays a big part but your strategies also grow along with your experiences against different opponents and when confronted with different situations on the table. I mean to say that your tactics level up (mental attributes) as well as your physical mastery over the cue and the cue ball.
Weight lifting has obvious benchmarks or levels attributed to it based on how much time you have spent doing it.
They say that if you do something for 20,000hours you can be considered an expert.
Marksmanship takes years of countless shots taken at boring targets.
Basically, grinding or farming is one of the most real life aspects of any rpg, imo.
I agree with your point but I disagree with the sentiment that grinding has to be boring and repetitive. For example with shooting, you could still shoot at targets but dress up the targets in funny outfits, or be in the army shooting at actual enemies and still technically that would be considered grinding if you're doing it enough. Grinding is still a poor excuse for content in a game in my opinion. You can still make a game fun and help the player learn how to get the hang of the game without having them do mind numbing tasks over and over.
Grinding is all about the player though, like think about it: the battle system IS the gameplay for the most part- if you don’t like having to fight a bunch of enemies, you don’t really like the real game. You probably like the story or the micromanaging of characters’ classes and abilities and to you the actual game just slows all that down- which is fine, I was that way a lot of the time.
My point is, if grinding is a problem in your game, it’s probably actually the gameplay. Obviously there is something about your game that people really like but if they complain about grinding it means that you did something wrong with the approach to battling or something.
That’s my two cents at least.
Ive always thought that grinding (particularly in ttrpgs) should be timeskipped, training montage style, or simply described as something characters are doing during downtime. To force players to actually endure playing through the grinding is a waste of time on uninteresting content. Yes grinding to improve skill is very realistic, but in real life it is a most unenjoyable task that is unfotunately required to be worked through. We do not play games to relive the most boring parts of real life, we play them to escape into a more fun and interesting world. As much as I wish more games would pursue greater realism, the goal of games should always be to provide an enjoyable experience. To this end, I have always found grinding to be nothing more than a chore that only distracts me from what I am really after.
Just make your sword arm steadier perfect level up right there.
@@bharl7226 Or just make the game all around fun and engaging.
Yes, you said, that most rpgs go for leveling or overleveling, but there are some games, which got your idea pretty good.
The whole Souls series (demon souls to bloodborne)
Without tactics you are screwed. Of course, to wield certain gear or cast some spells, you need a specific level in specific skills.
Kingdom Hearts series.
You get the possibility to cancel leveling up and only get stronger by learning better spells or get better gear. This would totally fit into your idea of a rpg.
There are many examples of existing games with this concept, but it is pretty hard to get a good motivation for progressing in the game.
Definitely. In Dark Souls, leveling doesn't give you such an extreme advantage.
If you go willy nilly, any enemy can kill you in a few hits.
@@themattbat999 Yeah being a high level helps but it is still easy to die. Extra damage is all ways helpful same with extra health.
Both examples you provide are leveling systems. With DarkSouls especially you can farm easy mobs forever, pump your stats like crazy, put on super heavy armor, and trivialize literally the entire game. I never played kingdom hearts, but it sounds like it uses a slightly modified leveling system, but it's still a leveling system. If you're still getting XP and using that to get stronger, you are leveling up your character. Just because there isn't a number next to your character tracking how many times you've 'dinged' and powered up, doesn't mean you aren't in a leveling system, it means they've put a coat of paint over it.
@@jessesutton7985 The increased stats aren't what makes the difference it's the equipment the actual stat gain is only like 10 hp or 5 damage. Not gonna help much against most enemies. However I won't deny that I farmed to use the stone great shield from the forest stone knights. And you can equip any item with low stats just will be slower on the swing or the roll will take a while to get up from.
@@ignisshadowflame1027 Yeah... so you really don't understand the mechanics of DarkSouls. You get LOTS more hp through stats, as well as lots more stamina. You also NEED those stats for the heavy gear/weapons. If you're slow rolling and using a weapon you can't wield you're going to die unless you're really damn good at the game. You aren't just slower to swing, you do way less damage and eat way more stamina using a weapon you can't wield. Fat rolling has worse I-frames and is likely to create far less distance since the enemy easily follows you. Soul Level 1 runs are considered challenge runs for a reason. Stats very much matter in that game.
There are loads of great RPGs without scaling enemies. We can agree that scaling enemies are stupid nonsense, but that doesn't make levels stupid. Grinding's the same topic. Yes, many developers take the lazy way out, but there are, again, fantastic RPGs where every single moment spent questing is uniquely fun.
i agree nobody should be able to survive a stab to the neck. what if i told you, unless its the last hit.. you didn't stab them in the neck. hit points represent your overall vitality, sure, but moreover they represent your WILL to keep fighting through the attacks that have done some damage to you. until its the last hit, you haven't been struck by a fatal blow, and more hps constitutes your ability to put that fatal blow off as long as you can. you can imagine how thats done however you like. maybe something that did a lot of damage was a stab through your forearm.. but you have 120hps.. which means you're so tough that you can keep going.
the reason you cant just run up and stab someone in the neck is, they are defending themselves.
Player : I want to stab him in the neck.
GM : Okay, roll your attack.
Player : 27!
GM : You hit! Roll damage!
Player : But i stabbed him in the neck! He should be dead!
GM : Roll damage and we'll see
Player : 24
GM : Okay, so you stabbed at his neck, but he wasn't just gonna let you do that. Instead you stabbed right through his forearm, and he is never going to forget where that awful wound came from... provided he lives through this.
Those practical concepts of swapping vitality/HP bars with a stamina/defence metre that effectively "breaks" and leaves one open to an actual killing or injuring blow have been done as well; and indeed make far more sense.
Sekiro Shadows Die Twice probably has the best such system. They've perfectly bridged the skill-centric dodge/counter/parry aspects of action adventure combat to modern action-RPG progression systems.
Sekiro, God of War (2018) and Zelda BotW all nailed that practical balance with combat and progression.
The upcoming Ghosts of Tsushima also looks incredibly promising in its combat.
It really does come down to practical skill progression over arbitrary statistical manipulation.
That doesn't hold true for real time action based games, which is pretty much every game on the market today.
Turn based games? yeah that makes sense, action games where I literally aim and hit his neck? yeah nah
@@crookeddesk yeah it def doesnt work for skyrim, witcher etc etc, like you said pretty much every game out there lol. for those you have to suspend disbelief even further. cuz you can literally be walking around full health with 14 arrows sticking out of your neck and face.
sorry but "will" or "toughness" don't deal with these issues. Even the strongest most hardiest warrior is not going to be able to be a warrior anymore with damage to a forearm. yes you might be able to fight through wounds in a battle but you will likely die of your wounds afterword or be a cripple. for traditional RPGs that were not 3-D it made sense in that you could imagine dodging, parrying, blocking or otherwise deflecting attacks. Armor can reduce the level of damage or even make it a non-damaging hit.
In general Hit Points are probably the most unreal thing in RPGs.
@@williamt.sherman9841 You'd be surprised what people can do once the adrenaline starts flowing. Besides, whether or not it's a wound they'd die from later depends entirely on the description and setting. If its in a "magical" setting, then its reasonable to assume a healing spell or potion probably accounts for making sure the wound doesn't get infected. If it's not a fantastical setting, then don't describe the guy blocking the dagger by letting it stab through his fucking forearm. You can nitpick all you want at what's "realistic" or not, but at base, we're talking about things that already depart from reality in countless ways to indulge in various levels of fantasy. Call it a health pool, call it willpower, call it stamina, call it their pain threshold. It doesn't matter even slightly. All it does is serve as a balancing tool through which to engage in combat as a game. If you simply want to describe how your character does thing and kills the dude, then write a book.
being "high level"bores me to death. I WANT to be desperate when the ogre survives my first arrow. I WANT the race choice to be relevant to my choice of playstyle and weapon. I WANT to have to manage my resources because I need every penny to buy that helmet that is a little better than the one I'm wearing.
Alexander Ross yeah, I really love having to get the spiders venom in skyrim because I love the edge it will give me against the first dragon. That's not a dark souls level of dificulty, but it is exactly what a smart rogue/marksman would do
+Alexander Ross even he said it's boring.
Mgs Victor Gomes im making a dnd style rpg with leveling. however the levels is set by the dm and there should be no stupid all same monsters. levels is there only to get new abilities and things to allow you to do what you want
Shadowgear that's cool man. I do think that learning new tricks and gaining more spell slots and stuff like that by leveling is pretty cool. The two main problems are the infinite amount of gold and other resources and the godlike damage output and healthbar that characters have at the endgame
Mgs Victor Gomes they may be god like but we have all the God's stats and crs so if your a high-level character you better be prepared to use tactics or be smited
You've largely convinced me, but I must say that I've seen a lot of level-driven RPG video games that seem to strike a good balance, such as Morrowind. You can easily go find something unbelievably strong to die to, but you also get powerful enough that the most common enemies become trivial. This gives you a sense of "I've become truly powerful" while still allowing things to threaten you, and makes traveling gradually easier while maintaining challenge in dungeons/etc.. Thoughts on that, Shad?
Yushatak I've always thought that the best way to do levels is to make it so that higher levels give players more options, like more magic or things like that, but not necessarily giving them flat out better attacks or straight upgrades. Just sidegrades to give more choices and strategies available.
The problem with Morrowind is that once you get to level 26 or so you're so powerful that you either need to get on with it and finish the game already, or keep playing and role play as a bully.
Yes and no on Morrowind.
There is no level scalling, but you can still grow stronger infinitely or nearly so, especially if you mingle with alchemy.
One thing about Morrowind is that you can find any item at any point of the game and use it.
+Yushatak
I don't know how much Morrowind you played, but at least in the base game you can completely break the difficulty in your favor. Because Morrowind doesn't have leveled loot drops, you can become insanely powerful just by knowing where stuff is at the start of the game. You can deck your chartacter out with the most insane gear using a 130 gold invisibility ring.
Couple that with the fact that you can literally level with gold alone by using trainers and the scamp trader in Caldera, you become a god in no time.
Bloodmoon and Tribunal countered that a bit by simply making enemies ridiculously strong with insane amounts of hp and damage output.
Still love Morrowind, but balance back then was not what we think of balance today.
The gear gave you an advantage, yes, but that's far from what "breaking difficulty" meant in Morrowind.
One word:
Alchemy.
+lohaneser
True, the intelligence potion exploit is absolutely the most gamebreaking thing you can do besides flat out cheating.
But what I was getting at is that you can completely turn the game into easy mode from second 1 just by knowing where certain items are and that you can simply take them with an invisibility spell.
Also I didn't read your initial comment where you had basically made tht point already, so sorry about that.
An interesting point of view. I'd love to see you talk about this with a member of the gamedev community, especially someone with experience building RPGs or MMOs. I feel that their insights would provide a great counter argument to your own and would result in a deeper conversation.
Levelling in games often creates an aesthetic that tends to serve a particular kind of group of players - the Abnegatiors - those who play to unwind. Because you can "accomplish" something by increasing your number, and that number gives you practical use, these kinds of games serve those who like approaching a game like an optimization task and want to create patterns and habits that don't take a lot of thought to maintain once set up. In these games, your EXP and stats matters more than your experience
This is opposed to a technical mechanics based game, or the "Challenge" aesthetic, where every moment you have to be on your toes, no matter where in the game you are you are at risk of being quickly killed if you slip up. Games like Monster Hunter, Zelda Breath of the Wild, Mount & Blade, and Dark Souls are like this.
They may have some levelling mechanics in them (or the levelling mechanics might have next to no effect) but the purpose is to have you always rely on your mind and body and never on your numbers. in these games, your experience matters more than your EXP and stats
The reason levels exist is because people like to see growing numbers. That’s it.
As a developer working on my own RPG, i have tried to break up that monotony of leveling by giving the player access to most of the game world early on. You could either take the time to build your character, or be smarter, and instead go out, seek good equips that compensate for your lack of skill, and beat the game that way.
@@hexzyle Leveling isn't always about pure numbers. In Zelda for example you often leave a dungeon with an item that opens up more of the game for you. In that respect I think there's a parallel to draw, especially when what you get is just an upgrade to something you already had and just makes your life easier. Like upgrading your armour or shield. What levels do is they quantify your progress, leveless systems do exist and they do result in much the same behaviour as level systems with players comparing other stats before they attempt certain content.
@@themattbat999 How do you define character progression in your game? Leveling for it's own sake is indeed quite boring, but so is grinding for the right gear in order to progress.
Shad, dude. Play GURPS.
Seriously. The game was practically MADE for you!
I think he'd enjoy Rolemaster or MERPS more. The complications of getting hurt alone would give him a braingasm.
There's a couple of issues you're clearly conflating. Levels, Hit Point Growth and Power Level. Simply put Levels like classes are an artificial creation in order to make a game run. Rather than having to add all the fiddly bits separetly you broadly assume someone who fights gets better at Fighting, there are games without levels and without classes that break these things up into different abilities(Storyteller has the painfully blunt: Melee skill, while Gurps has stuff like (Long sword, rapier, ax etc) but broadly speaking the purpose of levels is to simplify growth to make the game simple and easy to move forward its an active choice to chose simplicity over simulation.
Every form of progression you speak of other than Levels has existed since 1977. You seem to be only familiar with D&D as the sum all be all of rpgs. Its not. Its not meant to be an amazing simulation of medieval life plus magic and elves its a game like chess or Shogi there are games that include skills, fatigue, hit locations, bleeding out damage type varying by weapon and armor, chances of getting infectious diseases etc. You can likely find the perfect game for your sense of realism vs gameability out there if you stop trying to use D&D as your base. Its like trying to use a screwdriver as a hammer. Yes you can hammer nails with it but its going to suck.
Exactly. His fallacy is that all his arguments are against the overwhelming impact of levels in most games rather than the concept of levelling itself (but clickbait titles are necessary for more views.) If you want a more realistic RPG system, find one where every level doesn't give you twice the amount of health like D&D does, find one that doesn't make you do twice the damage every hit etc.
Bottom line is, you can easily use the level system to represent one's experience with realism, just make the levels not provide a massive advantage like most RPGs do.
His gripes make a lot of sense if you are looking at it from the perspective of video game RPGs. As far as pen and paper, with a good game master any flaw of the game system can be creatively overcome. (assuming its a type of pen and paper that uses a game master of course) You could argue that there are a few video game RPGs that might use a different system, but video games have to get a lot of stuff right outside of just the leveling system to even be playable, let alone enjoyable.
Also, the thumb nail includes characters of lvl 1, lvl 50, and lvl 100. That makes me assume he's not using D&D for the primary basis of his argument, because characters do not normally get to those high of levels in D&D. That's more common in video games. He also talked about grinding for levels which is a video game thing. I guess it could be a pen and paper thing but that would normally be the game master's fault not the system.
Not really I mean if he went off on a rant about how plumbers can't break blocks with their heads and everything unrealistic about Super Mario we'd be all "Wtf its a game". Or if he went off on a rant about how unrealistic chess is. Levels have both a stylistic and mechanical purpose that he completely ignores.
This is before we get into programming difficulties.
To be fair, even from the title I pretty much assumed he was going to be talking about those video game mechanics that are usually highly-coupled with arbitrary levels and not the existence of arbitrary levels as a principle. What I think Shad is trying to say is that the mechanics surrounding arbitrary character level in video games cause a lot of frustration and hamper the freedom of players to do things in an emergent way; To come up with their own styles of play, which I totally agree with. And just because Shad uses a hyperbolic example of a character surviving the headshot, doesn't mean he thinks any video game RPG of decent worth should be utterly realistic in terms of wounding and mortality. He tends to go about subjects in a rambly, roundabout way, and sometimes you kind of have to read between the lines.
and I will say again its like being frustrated you can't use a sword in Super mario or move left or right on a pawn. It is an intentional choice that serves a number of reasons. That he doesn't find them fun is a reasonable position. Learning how one would impliment a system more to his liking is also reasonable a rant on Levels like no one has ever considered his concept before is silly.
I like how M&B Warband's leveling system works, the levels have very little effect on your combat ability. As a LVL 28, I have easily beaten LVL 40 enemies in swordfights, but LVL 6 enemies downed me when I was not fighting to the best of my ability.
Endless Waffles that's the system of very much every Mount & Blade game
Yea it is, but I've only played Warband so that's why I mentioned it.
Were there enemies levels? I cant remember quite well.
I loved that anybody could kill you if they land a precise blow to you.
I believe enemys dont level(i might be wrong) especially the more troop side, while the more characters like count and npc of your party might be able to level(i dont know about this one). but basically they're leveled through the means of ranks and arms. you can train footman from peasant and train that footman to be cavalry and so on. So enemy difficulty varied depend on what the enemy troop are made of. Since different factions have different specialtys of troop and arms, this makes certain faction army more effective agaisnt some faction and less effective on certain faction. besides the how the leveling system in the game doesnt really change like your hp massively so that even peasants could still kill you if youre being reckless. God, I love mount and blade and i can't wait for Bannerlord coming in 2030
Sometimes I like to think of the "real world" in RPG game terms. In regards to levels, what would it mean if I were a level 1 doctor? Or what's the difference between a level 4 and a level 40 hooker? Or what would a level 100 janitor be like?
A level 1 doctor would be someone at medical school, still learning the basic skills.
A level 100 Janitor knows all the techniques that makes their job easier, allowing them to get more done in less time without sacrificing extra energy or quality of work.
Holy shit, why doesn't this have more likes?
a level one doctor knows how to use band aids, mother are level 5 doctors by default
It wouldn't even be lvl 1 doctor. It'd be your skill in medicine/medical stuff. Doctor would be a certain rank you'd get once you got certain knowledge and skills mastered.
A Lvl cap would be necessary there. Lv100 Janitor's not gonna happen.
A fairly simple solution to the problem of the "high-level character can't be killed by a dagger to the throat": separate the skill-based hit points a character has from the physical damage a body can withstand. Did this in my AD&D campaign 20 years ago or more and everything became better - real danger from a surprise attack, getting overwhelmed by a hoard of kobolds, poison being as deadly at 20th level as 1st level... Not sure how this could be modeled in a computer game, but it sure helped many of the complaints and problems you outlined in this video with table-top RPGs.
In the lone wolf saga game (I believe it's a module for some tabletop game that's been adapted to a text based mobile game) theirs hit points (and combat skill, which you get at the start and can be increased through certain items, but it's brilliant because A even if you get the worst possible scores in each when you role your character, you can still complete the game by taking the right paths and avoiding combat, and even if you get the highest possible scores, insta kill situations are just as deadly, for example, in the first book, if you simply pick the wrong path at a number of points, you'll die, 20 endurance points or 2 endurance points, and only very few enemies are unavoidable with insta kill scenarios often surrounding them.
@@FatherNagic on one hand, yes, on the other hand, normally the insta kill mechanics are fairly well signposted. And you can restart the chapter with the same character whenever, so i never really minded it. Its a text based adventure at the end of the day, you only have so many options.
Realism is good, but not in all aspect. Realistic jump height, fall damage, bleeding, sleeping, stamina, hunger, hydration, sickness, and all other stuff that would be REALLY tedious to worry about.
Developers have to focus on one or a few other things, and then ignore something else, to avoid that thing to negatively interfere with your initial plan.
I mean, Dark Souls are games that kinda represent what you're talking about (I guess), and it IS a great game. But it is not for everyone. Some people like to have the feeling that they have grown, and can see the result by easily killing low-levels that they struggled with a few levels back.
This is simply a matter of taste.
and war is usually just waiting , yeah add waiting to the game so it will be more realistic...
in dark souls a 10lvl difference is HUGE, by grinding a few time you can make any boss really easy, so not really a good example (i played al the souls + bloodborne and demon's souls so i'm not against the series by any means)
+Zag Zagzag Exactly. We play games to go AWAY from reality. Not to live the exact same life. Realism is good, but not in all aspects. I love Diablo 3 because I can feel powerful and kill 100 beginner enemies in a minute, look at all the blood, move on, and kill some more. It is fun.
I was born LEVEL 100!!
so you know it counts for nothing.
And Ninja Eugene must be level infinity ^_^
I don't age, I just get new levels!
try exanima game. i found it very good...
no levels quite realistic...
and Shad, you can die in every fight as easy as in the first.
So true, I think there is no need for every game to have a leveling system, however end-game content is for those whom have learn't the game and can share their skills well. Logging in to a game and playing with first timers who know nothing about lore and skills or even basic class mixed tactics would be a night mare, some games need a leveling system to allow players to get to know the game and their character classes. I can not speak for pen and paper games, and really if you are the GM you can do what you like, no need to level at all, it's all in your head and decided between you and the players, so no need to follow any rules but your own. As for PC games....
Diablo for example is a loot based game, it's all about the loot, the levels are only there to learn your class skills and get used to the play style you want so you can survive in the end game t13 and plus.
Wow is a game that is mainly about running with teams, you need that time leveling to learn on the basic dungeons so you are aware what your classes job is at endgame.
Skyrim is a game that maybe there is no need for levels? You gain shouts no matter what level you are, your skills can still get better the more you use a shield or bow.
I think it depends on what type of game it is. Is it a game you can load over and over until you learn or stumble on, the way to beat a boss or is it a game that needs you to be at your best for endgame so other players can rely on you? There fore, needing that grind for you to learn your class and not waste others time.
A Boxer (Real Life fighter) spends days, weeks, months, years punching a bag and timing on a ball and jumping over a rope (and if that is not grinding I don't know what is). Then he gets a shot at his first fight, not the title that is many more grinds away. He doesn't just put on his +1 gloves and trunks of confidence and then he can hold his own in the ring. He would get one shot in real life, I know leveling is sort of a content cheat, but I look at it like training before a big fight and I think it is a necessary evil in most online games to get everyone up to the same speed before going fourth into the great beyond together as a team with minimal weak links.
maybe the correct title is "Why character levels in RPGs are ABSURD!" Because we're talking about realism. You would love Zelda Breath of the Wild
Was looking for this comment sir.
I'm going to try and make a small point here: In some games, levels are not for strength or even for being able to acquire equipment, but rather a little digit that gives you points to improve your character. It does not however, change you're look as shown in multiple ads or the picture he kept showing.
5:52 Rasputin probably could've tanked that XD
Ra-Ra-Rasputin, lover of the Russian queen
There was a cat that really was gone
He grinded a lot for those hit points
He was a charisma based drunken mage build
I agree with you regarding this, my only note to say is that levels does represent growth of a character. Ie we start with a scrawny boy at the beginning of a story who could barely beat that dragon, then after years of adventuring he comes back and the dragon is easily slain. The boy has in a sense leveled up by grinding through levels and ect. Personally I always loved FF10 style where they didn't give levels but unlocked a chart of abilities and on that chart was things like HP boosts and stuff.
I can see by the date I'm late to the party, but still gonna comment. I have to disagree that it's stupid. I mean really, there's no such thing as an RPG without levels. Obviously, not all RPGs use a level system for progression, but when you don't have one, you still earn points or exp and increase skills, abilities, or something, and you combat skills or people skills. or environment manipulation skills go up (does that cover everything?)
The real thing here is, do those abilities go up as a package, maybe with some choice, or do you make a lot of little choices? But really, in a point system where you make little choices, by the time you've made say 2 choices, you could be in the same place as 2nd level in a level system, and then 3 for 3rd, 4 for 4th.
If something like GURPS or CHAMPIONS used levels instead, a level would be like every 15 points, and more points for higher "levels"
A 1st level D&D character should not e trying to kill a dragon, nor should a 100 point beginning character in a non-level RPG, maybe the D&D char should will till 12, just like the other char should wait for 12 combat related litle choices (prolly more, but just to illustrate
Really, the question should be, what's the best or more "realistic" progression model. For D&D, it's (let's not say levels) Punctuated Archetype Progression (PAP), you get your "big bong" sound and you get a handful of increases fitting the Archetype you've chosen
or
You're using a Slow Flow Concept Progression (SFCP) where you can pick whatever you want. Though chances are you're still building a certain archetype, weather your concept is as focused as a D&D one, or a little less specific than those, like a little fighting, and a little magic, but prolly still fits something someone in D&D has written up, but of course you don't have to worry about your concept being balanced, you just spend your points as you get them.
The level system should have the advantage of easy strength of party measuring, while the other should have more free form, maybe you'll match a specific archetype, or maybe a little more jack of all trade-ish like many literary heroes
If we're going to try and get a boiled down description here, I think we can say the two styles are Trope-ish or Literary.
But then, no matter what you have written on your sheet, there's still the matter of what personality you inject into the game
Fair point... The biggest problem by far with the D&D system IMO is HP and how it increases linearly with level. A 10th level warrior can survive more than 30 times as many arrows to the knee as a normal person, etc. Getting better at thieving skills also enables you to survive more wounds for some reasons, but becoming a better chef doesn't! In GURPS, as in real life, there's no necessary connection between how skilled you are and how many bullets it takes to disable you. You can choose to use XP to increase your HP a little bit, directly and by increasing Strength, but in realistic campaigns, it's capped an +30% of your Strength (which is basically a measure of your mass), so the toughest possible normal human can only take about twice as much damage as the average person, which I think is pretty reasonable. Like in real life, you don't get better at fighting by becoming better able to ignore stab wounds...you become a better fighter by getting better at not getting stabbed, by getting better weapons and armor and the skills to use them, by getting quicker and better at dodging (higher Dexterity, Advantages like Combat Reflexes, etc).
i liked levels in tales of vesperia, where it forced you to go back to lower level areas, but the monster's strength hasn't increased, really gives you a sense of how strong you have become since the beginning
If you want a fun and challenging JRPG that lacks a level system, I would recommend Monster Hunter. Skill, defense and strength is determined entirely by armor and equipment. This is great because you can switch between builds without creating an entirely new character. Granted, there is still a lot of grinding involved but every hunt feels awarding and satisfying. And if you are more interested in farming monster parts and items than a good challenge, just go online and hunt with other players. It's not a perfect series, but I really appreciate the alternative system they have.
Monster Hunter in recent years has made the stupid decision of confining a character action game to a DS screen. Even with the largest available DS, it's still not as big as I'd like.
Craig Tierney If some of the rumors about the Switch are accurate, that might not be true for long.
Toukiden does a great job of Levelless and classless progression too.. kind of better than Monster Hunter for my PERSONAL taste anyway. Making it at least a little more about your personal progression (strengthening your bonds with souls of strong historical figures/warriors/etc. you've rescued... its cooler than it sounds) as opposed to JUST your tools - which always felt just a little too impersonal for me.
Palicoes do gain levels though. Then again, since they are usually controlled by computer, you could make a case of cats growing more skilled at killing as they gain levels. Not that they gain actual skill, blastblight always trips them up. I do appreciate the natural progression most players face, it feels rewarding.
but he also said every rpg should be realistic and Monster Hunter is not realistic by any sense of the word.
I've tried level-less systems before and they're just an annoyance and a half. They're harder for players to understand, virtually impossible to create balanced enemies for the players, and difficult to make balanced characters for the players, you end up with all but the most experienced players worrying that they've too much of one stat or not enough of another, too many skills and not enough combat ability, or too many defenses and not enough offense (or vice-versa).
Ah, life. The endless road of possibility. Don't worry about balance. The point is having players consider their actions before hand instead of charging in. That always annoyed me with D&D; the Barbarian charges in, murders everything, and never considers if maybe talking, or a ranged weapon, would be better in the long run.
+Hunter Herne
This isn't a problem with D&D. It's a problem with your D&D game master.
It is definitely possible (and I'm telling from personal experience) to have D&D games where charging into combat will get you killed, and you have to consider diplomacy. It is possible to have D&D games where players have to scout and ask around to find out which enemies they can't defeat and where they should not go.
Sure, many D&D books provide advice how to design level-appropriate challenges for murder hobos... but there's no reason to use those rules when playing with a group who enjoys a different style of play.
I agree. Unfortunately, there is a case that people do something when they first play and if it works, they continue without much deviation. There were other issues with other DMs in the group not using monster powers, making encounters easier (biggest example is the wolf auto-trip attempt when they hit in 3.5)
Well, if it works, then I can't blame them.
You gotta look for players and GMs who have similar gaming preferences as you do, or are willing to make compromises for the sake of others enjoying the game with them.
And I don't think it has much to do with the system. I've seen just as many roleplay heavy groups who use D&D, despite the system focusing mostly on combat, as I've seen groups playing combat-focused campaigns with systems that in the rulebook focus on roleplaying.
> They're harder for players to understand
How can they be harder to understand if they have an element less to explain?
> virtually impossible to create balanced enemies for the players,
> and difficult to make balanced characters for the players
Those problems have been solved more than once.
Which systems did you try?
You need to gate content so that a player simply cannot go to the end of the game and skip 99% of the work you put into making the game.
Levels are a way to gate content so that you have to go through many of the quests and other content in the game without making the game too linear.
You could do it with skill, and you definitely should to some extent because games that progressively become easier is no fun. If a game is entirely skill based the difference between a a skillful player and a newbie is *huge* and you must find some way to compensate for that. Levels is a way to allow bad players to over-level a bit by doing some more side-quests, dungeon crawls etc. and skilled players to get the challenge they want by ignoring side quests.
You can gate it behind gear; you complete a side quest or do some dungeon crawling or kill a boss monster to get better gear to be able to complete the next main quest etc. Think Monster hunter.
You can gate it with linearity; i.e. you have to complete this level before you can go to the next level etc. Think Diablo where you slowly dungeon crawl one floor down at a time.
You can gate it behind quest lines. That's a way to put a linear thread into a free form open world game. Think the Elder scrolls series. Usually the main quest is *also* gated by level systems so you have to side quest.
You can gate content behind exploration/discovery. Think the original Zelda or Ultima underworld. It's really very important that the game is atmospheric and feels good just to play even if you're hopelessly lost and confused if this is the case. Many games just can't pull this off.
There are games that did leveling really well and I don't really see how you could have done them without leveling systems; .e.g. Gothic II. Then there are some that are just hideous (any MMO, Oblivion).
Levels are a lazy way to force players who are smarter than the game designers and writers to jump through hoops to get to the end. The problem is, in real games there is no end until perma death.
Maybe you should play an actual role playing game instead of the childish action games like WoW, Final Fantasy, God of War, D&D online, ESO, and other jerk off hero complex games. If the actions of the character are limited and do not affect the world as a whole then you're just reading a visual novel. The same goes for anjy game where every player does ever quest as if they are the only person doing that quest. By modern day gaming Pong is a role playing game because you are role playing the bar that is stopping the evil dot from getting past you.
P.S. MOBA games are for those who are to weak to PVP in the real world.
Kevin Sullivan maybe you should be more specific about half your points. Every game with money in it affects the world, sure inflation doesn’t happen but your exchanging something transferring money from one another that counts as interacting with the world. Also leveling almost is always needed. Without leveling you have to stay default stats if they change then you just leveled. Got stronger for doing stuff, reminder a true RPG in the sense of the video permadeath would have to exist. Also clever player mechanics doesn’t justify ignoring everything. Sure you could assassinate the tyrant of a kingdom, but what if you needed to remove his magic amulet? You just do that because you knew from outside sources that ruins the immersion. I get what your trying to say you just said it bad. Every RPG is essentially a visual novel, just one that’s being written as you choose
Well said!
I like the idea of ranking sytems in multiplayer games to sepperate the boobs from the pros, however I lke the idea of making it a bit more loose so you can keep a good ballance of enjoyability and competition.
Perma-death I'm fine with as long as I have had enough time to have fun in the game, experience the content and relly have an overall good experience with the game.
I think levels are good because they allow you to get more powerful the more you adventure. Your knight can become more proficient with their sword by taking down camps of goblins, your wizard can become better at using certain spells by the practice they gain during combat, your archer can become more accurate by taking out healers from long range, this progression allows your character to become more skillful, and works to keep your character naturally getting better at adventuring
Steve Jackson Games GURPS doesn't have levels... and hasn't had levels for a long, long time.
But you seem to be discussing On-Line RPGs & MMORPGs, rather than table-top gaming.
High level Hit Points is more a distinction of a character's ability to make a killing blow into a minor blow. The lower level Fighter takes a knife to the neck and dies... the higher level Fighter moves his body at the last moment, taking the knife to the shoulder-blade instead of the neck. The lower level Fighter gets hit by an arrow in the gut and panics and dies... the higher level Fighter gets hit by an arrow in the gut and knows to quickly break off the arrow shaft and tightly wrap the wound to keep the remaining part from moving around inside him.
I do agree with you about not liking level 1 characters... but that also obviates the idea that higher level characters aren't harder to play.
As for Superhero RPGs, they require a system of obvious improvement to reflect their source material. When Bane showed up to defeat Batman, he knew he wouldn't likely win in a straight-up fight so he arranged for Batman to have to deal with a lot of foes in a short amount of time so he'd be physically and mentally drained before Bane faced him. If that same Bane had shown up when Batman was just starting out, Bane would've flattened him.
And while yes, that could be portrayed by a purely skills-based system, a purely skills-based system doesn't easily explain why year-5 Batman can take a punch to the head by Bane and keep fighting, while year-1 Batman would be knocked out by the same blow.
What it really comes down to is... no RPG system can properly portray Heroic Fiction, because in Heroic Fiction, there's no such thing as "play balance". When Conan has companions on his adventures... none of them are anywhere near his equals. Sure, they can do things he can't do... but there's no point in thinking any of them are as IMPORTANT as Conan is. There's no way any of them can defeat THE ENEMY, because that's what Conan is for.
The only reason Frodo carries The One Ring is because of some weird inherent mental stability. Give that same mental stability to Aragorn, leave the Hobbits at home and easily half the problems faced in Lord of the Rings go away.
I've played Table-top RPGs for more than 30 years. Different game-systems are better for different genres of Role Playing. If I want to roleplay Epic Fantasy like the Elric stories or the Belgariad, I'm not going to use GURPS because skills-based systems start to either fall apart at the high-end or they become pathetically easy.
If I want to roleplay Pirates on the High Seas or The Three Musketeers, then GURPS is perfect for that.
I love systems like AD&D 3.5... not because of the high-level play, but because of the sheer number of options available.
While some level-based systems do devolve into "rocket-tag" (D&D is notorious for this), they don't have to... and high-level play can be much more complicated than low-level play. The low-level Fighter or Ranger is almost always limited to "swing sword" or "shoot bow". The higher level Fighter or Ranger is using tactics to get the most out of the array of abilities they have... unless they're part of the "rocket-tag" crowd and they're just "swing sword lots" or "shoot bow lots".
Thats dex not str.
Eric Brune Oh my God! No no no and NO. By breaking down the arrow you make a wound you could survive to lethal damage. Please do not spread misinformation.
"What it really comes down to is... no RPG system can properly portray Heroic Fiction, because in Heroic Fiction, there's no such thing as "play balance". When Conan has companions on his adventures... none of them are anywhere near his equals. Sure, they can do things he can't do... but there's no point in thinking any of them are as IMPORTANT as Conan is. There's no way any of them can defeat THE ENEMY, because that's what Conan is for."
This really bothers me in all fiction, especially heroic fiction. I like the 'Greatest Generation' philosophy that my grandfather taught me: "Boy, nothing important can be accomplished alone. If something was done alone then either it is not actually all that important as folks are making out to be or, more likely, someone out there isn't getting credit." I like the narratives where one hero lays down on the barbed wire for the other heroes and that all of them are equally special and not special at the same time. Maybe I just don't like heroic fiction........I don't know.... I definitely hate that scenario in games.........
I just want to point out that Frodo's main qualifications for Ring-bearer are his lack of ambition for power and his lack of actual power.
The Rivendell council consisted of representatives of each race, who each refused to let the other races carry the ring because they feared that the others would use the ring's power against them. Gandalf and Aragorn wouldn't carry the ring because, as Gandalf said of himself, they would be too powerful if corrupted. The council let Frodo carry the ring because no one is afraid of being betrayed by Halflings. Worst case scenarios: a corrupted Gandalf could become the next Saruman , a corrupted Aragorn: the next Witch-king, a corrupted Frodo? Just another Gollum.
Call of Cthulhu doesn't have levels as well. Love d100 rpgs.
Have you seen the way Pillars of Eternity handles character levels? You only gain ability points per level. Certain 'weapon' masteries every even level and class related abilities every uneven level. Only up to level 16. You don't gain any HP or Damage modifier, those come from your base stats which you acquire at the character creation. I feel like you'd enjoy it. It has a very pen & paper feel I don't know if that's positive or a minus.
What i really like about that system is that there are no restrictions to equipment. Every character can wear any armor or wield any weapon, with the disadvantage being that heavier armors reduce the number of actions that you can perform per unit of time. Some balancing is necessary, after all.
some good points although it seems to me that the examples you gave have nothing to do with levels directly but rather poor implementation of leveling. i do apologize for how long this is going to to be but lets get to it.
first of all for a system of leveling that i think is done very well look at skyrim. now the balance in skyrim is all out of wack but that is NOT because of the mechanics of the leveling system, its because of the actual numbers they attach to them. i'll be using Skyrim as i go through for the sake of a well known example. also because im currently playing through skyrim...again....
so lets start with your point about levels being meaningless because of enemy scaling. thing is, in order for the enemies to scale with you the game has to have some way of determining your relative power level. and your level is a good way to do this. skyrim does this very well in that it: 1. doesnt force you to follow a specific path throughout the game. you CAN deviate from the course once you get out of helgen. and 2: it doesn't scale all the enemy difficulties to you. not directly. nearly every enemy in the game has a minimum and a maximum level. so there are areas that you can go to where you will be hopelessly outmatched. and there are some enemies (giants) that have a constant level. however you can still kill a giant you just need to use good tactics. this is something consistent across most of the skills. you can pick any level of lock regardless of your characters skill, you just need to expect to lose several lockpicks or you need to (as the player) get really good at playing the minigame. pickpocketing i would say is likely the worst of the bunch in this way. at a low skill level it is difficult to pickpocket things (without save scamming that is) and therefore harder to level up. but it does give you a lot of practice getting out of jail i suppose. my point is its possible to have a leveling system without it being all-important: a large portion of what your skyrim levels do is provide the game (or your gm) an easy thing to reference to determine your strength.
the next thing levels do is they can be used to limit your character (in theory at least) look at skyrim again. yes you can get OP AF but its not because of your character level. the most health you can get from levels is 900 (assuming that you dont legendary any of your skills) compare that to being able to easily do 400-500 damage on a swing before adding in crits and power attacks and you would still be squishy AF with that much health. the thing in skyrim that makes you unkillable is smithing and enchanting SKILLS. consider a person that instead goes straigh to a city and maxes their enchanting, alchemy and smithing. according to the formulas here: en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Leveling that would put the player at lvl 32. that is more than enough perk points to max out the effectiveness of all 3 perk trees (without exploits) and further without exploits this character could make basic iron armor/shields strong enough to max out physical damage reduction. which is 85%. meaning he's taking 15% physical damage. so if he put all of his levels into his health (kinda stupid for combat but this guy want to be a tank) he would tave 400 health. with 85% damage reduction. or effectively 2600 health against physical damage. almost 3 times as much as the max level character. because he's maxed enchanting as well he can reach the same level (or even higher) in magic damage reduction. so basically the game is balanced with the level UNTIL you bring skills into it. additionally, even if you used the console to give yourself those skill levels without the experience you'd still have 666 of each and every level you could gain 66.6.
as an extension of the point i made above your level doesnt HAVE to mean you get stupid amounts of health. even in mmo's like WoW its not really your level that gives you the health, its your gear. a balance issue, not an issue with levels themselves.
another thing that levels do is they give players goals. and yes i have played mmo's like you're talking about where grinding was necessary to level. however those are generally shitty mmo's regardless (flyff for example). on the other hand even in mmo's its possible to do well without grinding. in WoW there are a variety of ways to gain exp that arent all collection quests (although i will admit that leveling in wow IS grindy at points) however other games this problem is almost entirely eliminated. for example guild wars. yes, there were collection quests and hunt quests, but there were also a lot of missions and story type quests. very easy to level without it feeling grindy. but then even once you DO reach lvl 20 you're still not ready to be a badass, because now you have to collect and unlock skills. specifically if you want to get that elite skill that's central to the build you're going for..you have to go hunting for it. so yes guild wars has a leveling system but it doesnt come with most of the problems you're describing. (just to be clear im referring to guild wars 1 not 2) and then obviously in skyrim you leveling by simply playing the game, yes you CAN grind if you want, but it is by no means necessary.
to your point about instakilling, im going to assume you know about the coup de grace move for tabletop. however, lets talk about other games. in a lot of mmo's you are limited in that they are mmo's. giving you the option to do anything you want, is very difficult. "sneaking into big bads chamber" would be hard to implement/balance. meaning that specifically you need to be referring to single player rpgs. going back to skyrim, you have that option. and in a lot of bethesda games. teh sneak system in skyrim is almost an insta-kill on anyone IF you can sneak up on them. yes it is somewhat unrealistic for someone to survive but at least they did try. also the alchemy perk that allows you to reverse pickpocket poison onto someone to poison them. or in fallout you can do it with a grenade. it DOES exist. albeit i agree in mmo's it largely doesnt..or if it does its scripted and not player choice.
TL:DR: the problems you described are not typically inherent in leveling systems only in balance. however having a leveling allow the game creators more easily judge relative character level so that they can appropriately set difficulty levels. IMO.
PS. sorry for the long post, i do enjoy your content though.
A bit of point about grinding. It's surely not really roleplay-style, but some games still do have decent fun battle gameplay. The good "grinding" game shall not just force you to grind to get results, it shall try to make the process itself fun. Sometimes it just feels good to go and whack some couples of thousands monsters :)
The process shall be fun, you shall have some different places or goals to try for a change, you shall have your place in the high-level world (for MMOs), too, even if you're not lvl99. If the game achieves that, it isn't really a problem even if the grinding is long.
Still not too roleplay-ish, certainly. But the real problem (usually for MMOs) is when you just have one or two places to go at the level, the one choice of party (like healer-dd-tank trio) to use, and you're playing your own child sandbox until you reach the cap (like when you can make 100 silver per hour at level 60 and 10k silver per hour at level 90, or when you're totally useless in "adults" world like guild battles). Such approach do ruin the game. And it's quite common (for MMOs), sadly.
to be fair, when i say "grinding" for me the bad kind is built into the definition. otherwise i say farming
Balance is the main issue when it comes to levels and I think Bethesda does a pretty good job at it overall.
You can kind of abuse it by maxing out all your skills and not actually triggering the level up process (e.g. going into the skills menu) but that doesn't make you stronger in the grand scheme of things as you'll only have your base magicka/health/stamina to use... which is not nearly enough to not die a lot. Not levelling also limits what you can find/buy somehwhat.
Removing levels would mean the introduction of 'on-the-fly' "level" calculations to determine stuff which would normally be done by "levels" and they could get the same result by simply hiding the character level, removing level up triggers (make it auto level up) and still providing "level up" milestones for the player to action... whether the player decides to invest their milestone rewards or not is entirely up to them.
Hell, make it a toggle option in the settings "manual level up enabled/disabled" so if you want absolute control over character levelling you need to trigger it manually (E.g. in Skyrim by opening the skills menu), otherwise the game will auto level you and whether you assign improvement to magicka/health/stamina is up to you... which could be interesting for those who want to keep their base stats as low as possible while the enemies get beefed up.
Well, it's tough talking about balance as it relates to a single player game. But in skyrim it's not the skill levels that make you OP I understand what you're saykng, but I don't think most people do what you described. And even without doing what you described you can get op. Enchanting is ridiculously OP. A sword and board fighter can get up to something like 95%damage reduction against all sources of damage (at least as far as combat goes) and you only need 5 skills maxed to do it. To put that into real numbers, that means that whatever your health is, multiply it by 20 and that's what your effective health is.
Basically once you get to that point you can tank anything in the game without a care.
I think that destruction magic actually ends up being one of the weakest forms of offense because of poor damage scaling
sillyking1991 i can agree with destruction damage not scaling well, especially in late game/high levels. At least melee and archery can benefit from resto pot loop abuse to get obscene base damage (makes the damage multipliers for difficulties useless when you hit for 4 figure damage), all destruction gets is reduced cost. Which is why I do not play a magic based character on legendary without a shit load of mods to improve destruction a lot. That is what happens when spell crafting is removed. You can't make even more powerful spells or unique spell combinations (paralyse+elemental damage was always fun).
And you got it spot on with damage reduction really. On my last warrior build i stopped investing in health at around 300 because i was just sponging everything and I had hardly any additional enchantments for damage reduction but it wasnt particularly fun anymore. Plus the shield charge perk negated combat entirely in many situations. In fact i am certain that i killed people more often via shield bashing than with a sword/axe in those scenarios :-/
Shad: Scaling makes levels pointless
Also Shad: Being level 100 makes you too op and run through everything.
This whole video makes me laugh. I've played every edition of DnD and every point he makes is wrong. One would have to make a video picking apart all the points this guys talks about.
@Insignatious What's wrong ?
JawZ it removes the sense of danger and risk, unless your running against god tier enemies, i think thats what he’s getting at, games that dont run on levels have a certain.. uncertainty of “well am i strong enough? Will this work?” Just my take on this
@@rzgaming5678 If a RPG game is run properly, there should be no such thing as 'OP'. If we were considering a video game in which your character has become OP, then I would consider this a failure from the developers. Tough characters should be facing tough opponents. Traps would be more deadly. Puzzles more difficult and beating a boss would take into account your creativity and not just rely on your brawn.
If you or I were to begin training today in MMA, by the end of a month we would be at best, first level MMA fighters. Conor McGregor being a dual titleholder at the same time, and clearly an 'epic level' MMA warrior and would make short work of us. Our fists and feet may hit him, but it's his experience that allows him to take less damage from us by the way he moves and deflects attacks than say another epic level MMA warrior, let's say khabib nurmagomedov. Their health or hit points if you like, are a representation of this ability to deflect incoming attacks. Leveling is just another way of gauging ones experience with a given discipline. I'm 47 years old and would be considered a 1st level jujitsu fighter {because I’ve only trained a short time}, but I'd be a high level specialist in my chosen working career because I've been performing this specialized job for several decades. Hope that makes sense. Not trying to pick a fight or be a smart ass, but that video got it all wrong in my opinion. Cheers.
JawZ i completely understand your viewpoint, while i didnt expect a full on reply i do agree with what your saying, i do however think that games in general will never be fully balanced in such a way, Darksouls and similar games have the closest approach to this form of “creativity/versatility over lvl/rank” most mmo’s completely disregard mechanics like that and sadly most games in general follow suit. The Elder Scrolls series had a system that kept increasing enemy difficulty as you leveled up, but even that was limited to a certain extent. While I dont completely agree with everything Shad says but i feel its still its a decent enough point imo. But yea good talk man, take it easy
Thats why my favourite game is Gothic 3! Also Gothic 1 and 2 too... you have your own character lvl system but the monsters never level up and will always stay the same difficulty, aldo you can choose between easy, normal and hard difficulty in options. And when you kill a monster/NPC they will be dead forever, they will never respawn! Its really one of the best RPGs in its era and i recommend everyone checking it out ;)
Gothic 3 jesus fucking christ... I've never actually played Dark Souls before, but i imagine Gothic 3 would be at Dark Souls difficulty level. Wolves were always the worst, they reduce your from 100 to 0 in half a fucking second, and god help you if you end up missing a hit on it with a sword. And this was on normal. If you really hate yourself to the core, play that shit on hard difficulty.
EVE Online is a interesting example of MMO without levels. There is still grinding, but it's easly explainable.
*Mining for hours?*
Well, you need to get somehow that money for new spaceship!
*Doing a lot of missions?*
You need to prove your loyality, so they can trust you and give more risky tasks.
*Waiting weeks for skill to be learnt?*
Do you spend 5 minutes studying in real life? NO! You need to spend years to actually learn something and to be smart!
Mission running is a weird one, you can actually skip a considerable amont of the grind by teaming up with someone who's already unlocked high-level missions, which allows you to earn LP faster than running lower level ones.
EvilBarrels just like real life. If you have connection most often than not you can bypass that kind of thing
So you're *leveling up* your trust?
See the problem?
It seems that it would be equivalent to growing up with a Senator's child; having been friends with them from grades 4-12. You've always been a dedicated student; and they write the letter that gets you into the Naval/Air Force Academy -- with time, education, and practice through countless simulated and real missions, you become one of the most promising tacticians in the country; but then, you also had access to far more of the variety of military tactical education than almost anyone on the planet. All through a connection with a fellow in a high place. --- So, I could see the argument.
@Luxai the video was specifically talking about character levels, and not about levels for other things, like skill levels. So even if you interpret being trusted more as being a 'trust level', that doesn't create a problem since it's not a character level.
Leveling system can be abused by grinding monsters that pose little threat to trivialize the subsequent encounters. Skill system can be abused by maxing out certain skills so that it's statistically unlikely that you will ever fail and maximizing the usage of said skills. Gear-based low fantasy systems can be broken with metagame knowledge of how to obtain the best gear, because there's no level gates stopping players from shoving people off cliffs/dropping boulders on their head and looting their corpse, the same as NPCs are often treated.
If I ever have to take risks and roll a die, I'll do my best in advance to make it as loaded in my favor as possible. Why does Dark Souls work? Because dying doesn't mean a thing and you have an eternity to learn each encounter to perfection since it's not randomized. Why don't classic roguelikes work? Because you can't even grind there - you are always prone to random broken-ass monsters ruining your day, so you are at a constant emotional strain and will still inevitably fail when you come across some obstacle you haven't seen before or lose focus. "You've played for 193 hours 30 minutes and 21 seconds. Press to try again!"
Removing random rolls from encounters makes it somehow even worse. "Puzzle traps" or "social encounters" that can't be decided with a roll of Intelligence/Charisma must be solved by players' own wits instead, inevitably turning it into a contest of douchebaggery between the GM and the players with no system to resolve the dispute.
And at the very end if players don't feel like they have an advantage over their enemies, they are likely to avoid conflict altogether. That's when 10-foot pole paranoia comes about, the chest is a mimic, the sword in the chest is cursed, the orc guarding the chest must be grossly overleveled, your party cleric is a doppelganger, the floor is a hatch into a spiked pit, the ceiling is a cloaker. You'd leave the room, but the doorknob has a poisoned needle and the walls are slowly coming together. I'm out, tell me what to roll to determine what crops I'm farming and how big is my harvest.
Some of your complaints I greatly prefer. One person's junk is another's treasure, I suppose.
I alway viewed the level up as your character growing up in experience. In reality life is like that in anything.
If anyone knows the channel the Couch warrior. His character Ettiy in 'The Passage" It took his character 100 years to get to level 1, because elves age differently than humans.
Levels are used to tell you how far you can go before running into an Enemy that just kill you right away
Levels in RPGs are not progress it is a Gauge of Strength
You can't progress the story by Leveling up
And some Enemies are written to be force loss fights
Moving from your safe home, and gradually moving towards and into enemy territory explains the growing difficulty !!
More and more difficult when furter and further from the Shire and closing in on Mordor !
If it's an attack from the enemy, then you would see more of a mix in strengths of enemies. If you're doing the attacking, then at first you would probably meet lower powered monsters then higher the deeper you go towards a PoI but not if you're just going further into the middle of nowhere.
LoTR is a great example of the opposite of your point: the first encounter is a ringwraith, one of the deadliest foes in the world. The second encounter is 9 of them. Then an army of orcs (including a troll) and then a Balrog. There's a lot of running away in the first book.
I disagree, at the beginning of the game, D&D or Final Fantasy or whatever, monsters have basic tactics/abilities because you have less options at your disposal so figuring out how to win the fight is easy. At high levels, the monsters will have a ton of nasty abilities, so you need to utilize your abilities effectively. With good tactics, yes the battles will be of similar difficulty as when you were at low level, but if you're still just trying to use basic low-level tactics you'll find the game to be very difficult even if you're over leveled.
The difficulty scale if you have a level system is about learning how to best utilize the tools you've earned throughout the game. At least it is when the game is well made.
It depends on the context of the story you want to tell.
I love the sort of Characters Evolving Beyond Themselves story that levels provide.
But if you only classify levels as 'skill level' rather than a transformative process of growth, then yeah levels are stupid.
Shad you need to stick with what you know, stick to the historical stuff. There is a vast difference between a table top RPG like dungeons and dragons and MMORPGs. The easiest and most obvious example of this is the fact that tabletop RPG‘s are infinite. Their content is only limited by the imagination of the game master. Without a leveling system in MMORPG, players would burn through content so quickly that the developers couldn’t make more, before the game got boring to the players.
Using your imagination to render places objects scenarios in your mind is the quickest form of content development there is. Helen however until we develop a neural interface that allows us to render in a 3-D environment the images in a minute, developers need time to translate those stories in places and ideas into something that’s interactive in an artificial environment.
Leveling systems work with quest systems to guide you through content at a pace that is a balance between slow enough to allow time to develop more content, but is fast enough for you to enjoy all the content and master your character before new content is released.
No I agree some MMORPGs have in the past made this peace much slower than it had to be. But there is definitely a reason for having it. Also it’s much easier to scale encounters with enemies to your heroes capabilities with a number that is table to a set of Stats then it is to scale the stats directly to the character. This is true whether you’re playing a table top RBG or an MMORPG
In my games we always have a rule: a backstab always kills the target.
In one game our ‘level 1’ characters managed to sneak into a goblin outpost and then found the leader's tent. The sneaky guy was given a flintlock pistol, sunk into the tent and, at point blank, blow the goblin leader’s head off. Mission completed. And felt as fast as possible.
stupid rule , you know how to backstab to incap an opponent instantly , it can be done wrong
Has no one heard of the "coup de grâce" mechanic?
I'm pretty sure successfully slicing the throat will kill any humanoid except supernatural beings like vampires.
You can be spotted, but if you are standing behind the guy - it's hard to do it wrong.
It's a stupid rule that makes rogues overpowered, why would a level 1 character's weapon be able to go through every type of armor in the world and score lethal blows left and right, just because they're attacking from behind? Doesn't make much sense, strength/dex should definitely be a factor in insta-killing someone, so should the weapon itself... a non-magical rapier killing a fighter in full plate armor? Not happening. What about a fighter in magical armor? Hell no!
You'dd have to hit to begin with. A backstab still needs to be rolled to hit in games like D&D...
Yeah, I think Dark Souls is the best example of a level system done right. Leveling up in the soulsbourne series is just a way for you to specialize your character to your specific style of play without restricting you to a rigid class system. It makes the game easier, but with enough skill, ingenuity, or tenacity, a player can beat the whole game at their base level. Also, even with upgrades to health and armor, low level enemies can still be a potent threat; especially to unskilled or innatentive players. Leveling up is rewarding in a way that doesn't feel artificial because both the player's increase in skill and stats is a testament to the challenges they overcame to reach that point, instead of just grinding.
Jim Davis is God also lvling is more rewarding because you had to earn the shit out of that stuff, with the learning curve and unforgiving nature of losing souls each lvl feels earned unless you actually grind out the same five enemies u til you claw your eyes out
I would however totally disagree with what you said. "The more difficult the encounters the bigger the satisfaction when you succeed"
This is not true. There is a sweet spot. Too easy feels pointless. Going too hard starts to also become pointless, right after the whole frustration it creates until you reach the point of saying "fuck it, why am I wasting my time on this for?"
Balance. Which ultimately makes your statement completely untrue.
Now, as for the death part, that is something that makes encounters feel more epic. PoE Hardcore mode sure feels that way as you are trying to go as far as you can without dying. And if you aren't a meta-whore copying builds online all day, it can be an exhilarating challenge.
But again, balance. The game does not end there, your character simply moves over to standard upon death. Now you could chose to continue, or to play again in Hardcore.
So no, I would disagree. Strongly. You have your expertise in swords, but allow us to take the crown on other things since some of us have been doing this for over 30 years and not just as a hobby :D
Balance balance balance. You need to make things feel challenging and frightful enough at times to induce that epic moment, but at the same time pump the breaks to make sure it is not frustrating to the point of quitting and simply not enjoying the game. Because after all, we play games to enjoy them and immerse ourselves, not to be frustrated.
I would say Dark Souls has gone too far on the "make it hard" kind of mentality. The game for many is hardly fun, and for those that it is I can bet any money it frustrated them a lot.
The problem with Dark Souls is not so much the difficulty sometimes, but the fact that they have mechanics that are quite clunky at times. The way attacks sometimes string and animations or even the dodge roll (which is 100% unrealistic but people are ok with it because hits deal 90% hp damage)... What I am saying is, that the mechanics need a lot of polish. For example, the game even has a form of attack queuing, when pressing said attack whilst another is being done cannot be cancelled. As in, I press an attack, press another, and before the first attack finishes change mind and want to quickly block or dodge... The game just says fuck you and your reflexes, I am going to attack regardless. There are countless examples like this which make Dark Souls in the given example have mechanics that in the end feel like the work against you more than there as tools. At which point, the frustration is doubled.
It is clear to me that one of the main issues with Dark Souls in my experience is the clunky mechanics at times. Working against you. And the real challenge has become just "too much damage". Their true ingredient to making it hard was instead of clever polished design, just "add more damaaage!". Mechanics that interrupt at times in awkward ways, among many other things. It is so much more evident how unpolished this "hardcore" design of their is when you actually do better when YOU DO NOT DEFEND. I swear, most of the time I die in that game is because I take it seriously. Soon as I go yolo and just spam attacks on them, as long as I get that first hit in I am constantly interrupting them and it anything but hard at that point. My second play through with the Firelink Sword that throws a trail of flame was ridiculous, I was rushing through content like they were useless. If I stopped and defended and took it seriously, I had a higher chance of dying.
Things like that prove the formula wrong. You don't just increase damage outputs to make something hard. You could, but it would be frustratingly stupid at times.
Also, on perma-death, well, depends on the setting. If we are to be humans (not undead like Dark Souls) and die with single hits, I would expect none less from attacking a human as well. (Clearly for Dark Souls all that is out the window as we are all pretty much undead).
Again, balance. Perma-death and "lets go as difficult as we can" is not the answer. Its like a fine served plate. You can't say "well raw is not good, so the more I cook it the better it will be" and serve people charcoal. You need to cook it right so that it can be a tasty dish. And that is what game development is about. Of course its normal most gamers wouldn't know of these details, because most gamers would need to play such a game to understand the effects of said results. And so they cling to assumptions that are not exactly true, but its understandable. It isn't their job and they haven't analyzed it to the point of ridicule. Further more, most large developers out there want to play it safe and treat games as a grind time-sink and want to hand gamers things to make it easy to quickly catch their attention in the sea of titles out there and make it consumable by most casual markets and well, its a business. Its all about the money. And unfortunately this pushes notions on the gamers that experience one extreme too much that are not true. "the more difficult" is not good.
Best balance to all this is also difficulty choice. You could litterally love it on a hardcore difficulty, but are in the mood to just chill a little with the game and not take it seriously. Not every occasion is the same. And that should be a choice as well part of all the balance.
So, end of the day.... balance! And I don't mean character balance, I mean experience balance.
Honestly, game character just have levels because it's an easy design and it works well enough. If you tried designing an RPG video game without a leveling system you will see how difficult it is to get the feeling of progression right without it. Not to mention you also need game mechanics that are balanced without skill and level checks. It's not that easy, which is why not many games try that route.
True. My game uses a leveling system but its to determine in-setting things like skills and trait growth over the course of training and experience and is always considered 'out of character'. I could take levels out of it to do the same thing but it would just make things harder to get a nearly identical narrative result. My game does take out the two-dimensional concepts of 'I'm simply this class or that' and 'hit points' and 'AC' in favor of more realistic mechanics but getting rid of the concept of 'level' entirely proved to be more trouble than it was worth. I'm open to working on a level-less design at some point but I'm not quite ready for that, yet.
In games, like billiards and chess you have different levels of players. Some are beginners, others are masters. Most are somewhere in the middle. As you gain experience, you gain the ability to defeat more players.
as roleplayer myself id like to add some things
1) there are games that have level progression as indicator but it doesnt say anything about your characters actual power as you can spend XP any time you want so a level 2 character can be more powerfull than a level 20 character.
2) there are games like Gothic, where you actually need to find a teacher before you can increase any stat so you may be lvl 30 but without a teacher to teach you, you still cant do shit
3) in most RPGs gear is muuuuch more important than levels, usually items are tied to level so that you get stronger gear with higher level but there are games where theoretically the best armor is already avalaiable at level 1 so a good equipped level 1 character can stomp a poorly equipped level 60 character
4) Some games like Dark eye have a clear focus on non combat abilities, and level is just a circumstance of experience in a certain field. XP can be collected from pretty much any task, not just combat and a level 30 character may not have spent a single point in a combat ability so again level does not indicate strength, he may just have learned 10 different languages and mastered cultural knowledge of several races instead and be awesome at crafting boats but wouldnt know which end you grab the sword.
5) In games like World of Darkness character level is literally non existant at all.
6) Some RPGs actually allow you to reset your level any time you want to without loosing your gear or progress and you may want to do so for luring players into attacking you and being in for a surprise. Freewar is a game where so called "playerkiller killers" delibaretely keep their level in a low range so that playerkillers target them and then die trying.
7) It relation to real life, a "level" kinda makes sense. If you are a recruit in the army you are a level 1 soldier not knowing shit not having access to the actual weapons and armor. If you proceed to becoming an actual soldier, you get better gear and have far more experience in combat. If you get some promotions - every time you "level up" your rank you get access to better weapons, armor, tasks, and are better and what you are doing. Similiar for a "mage" - if you just finished high school you are on an entirely different level as if you just made your masters degree or doctor.
Similiar age is an indicator of "level" where the older you get the more experienced, better, wiser and more knowing you become. After 20 years being an electrician you will be much better at it than at year 1.
8) For gameplay reasons character level can make a lot of sense. It allows you to adjust the difficulty to your liking - if monsters always have the same level, than playing through the game at level 10 will be much much much harder than doing so at level 50. You can basicly spend time leveling to lower the difficulty without feeling like a looser for choosing "easy" in an options menu. Actually Requital made this funny as you do choose a difficulty level - easy you start at level 10 hard you start at level 1.
9) In games with leveling systems i feel the "good old" progress the best. When you start the game and barely manage to kill a rat and later, maxed out you plow through dragons thats the kind of game that i feel matter, where you start out as just another weak unimportant guy and gotta achieve everything hard. Like in the gothic or risen series where you start out weaker than almost everyone else, you are neither some chosen, prophesised superhero whi already is inherently better than everyone else and just gets more awesome over time, you really start out as ordinary guy that no one takes notice of and become great through effort and hard work, never surpassing what everyone else could achieve as you stay a normal human but really just becoming better
10) and some games like Guild Wars 1 have a max level that is very easy and fast to reach and from them on there is little progress. In GW 1 as example you could get to max level in a few hours usually when leaving the tutorial zone and while you could aquire new skills along the way, you basicly had a maxed out character after your first day of playing the game - gear wont improve any more, you wont improve its really all abotu tactics having the right team and find a nice build
I don't want to have access to high level gear and zones when I log a brand new toon into a game. I like the initial mystery and awe and the feeling of achievement when I've worked my way up to them. That breaks immersion. In the real world, grinding is a thing. If I want to be stronger, I 'grind' at the gym, very hard, for months or years.
Thats why "Metroid" and "Legend of Zelda" games are so epic - no "leveling up" - just get better gear and learn to use more skills.
In modern games, Some "levels" are only used to unlock gear/areas, no demonstrative bonuses other than that.. (looking at Division 2, Anthem, FO76, et al)
@extreme odst yep, in this cases you even need real money to level up. Hahaha
Metroid and Zelda still have the "HP" thing that comes with RPGs. At least in Metroid's case, it's justified because the energy tanks represent how much fuel Samus' suit has for shields around her suit have, which makes HP for her realistic, assuming that hyper-advanced Chozo technology was developed.
Your problem is mostly in my understanding that you interpret for example 20hp as person having 20 hearts or something like that. In reality hp bar just represents the damage you can sustain before you lose your life. It doesnt mean when i lose 700 hp points, then i just lost 700 lives. And only time you should critizise realism in video games is in simulation games. Otherwise theres no point in it.
Levels are a game design element, ultimately it is a game, and the assemblage of game design elements serve to 1) make the game work 2) provide an enjoable play experience 3) allow the developers to regulate difficulty so the game is neither overly easy nor frustrating for most players.
If levels do that and fit well, then levels are a good choice.
Shadow of war basically satisfies all ur complaints while still having a lvling system. Basically bad games are ur problem not the actual leveling itself
Rules As Written and Rules as Intended quoted:
The level 4 assasin (actually stealth-specialized rogue) slips through the window, makes his steath checks and makes it to the 20th level barbarian's bed as he sleeps. pulls out a 6 inch dagger, and crit icepick plunges it into the barbarian's neck.
he does >36 damage. out of 150.
The barbarian wakes up, gets up non-chalantely with the blade still through his throat, unleashes an unarmed ferocious dervish, and the assasin explodes into mulch, having 12 hp. The barbarian then yawns, takes a sip of water, andf falls asleep again, the dagger slowly being pushed out of his neck via him healing 20 hp for resting.
This is sourced from the **rules** the PHB states. if your games work differently, thats homebrew. thats not the rules as intended.
@@JSHADOWM Playing with 3.5/Pathfinder Rules the Babarian needs to succeed a 46 DC fortitude save. With a class fortitude bonus of +12 at level 20 he still needs to roll 34 or he will just die. The coup de grace action was pretty much made for this scenario.
@@MoosCountKira Against a stealth spec rogue? nope. no DC. i was not talking about the assasin presige class, cause there should be any universe where a 6 inch, sharp, steel dagger being plunged into a throat should be shrugged off, under any circumstances, yet a purist stealth spec rogue would not have a death DC.
Critical Lv. 1 runs in games in the Kingdom Hearts series...
The whole leveling up idea was behind this: One sword using knight walks up to a dragon. The dragon looks down at the tiny human, almost amused. They fight. To the dragon's surprise, the human slays the dragon. Basically, people play it to become the fantasy version of a superhero... logic bypass and all.
If you want to be realistic, no human with a human-sized weapon should be able to do more than make noise with it clanging off of the dragon's scale or just irritate (not even damaging) its open eye.
In a tabletop pen-n-paper RPG, a good DM can make calls and make it more believable. In video games, the absurdity cannot be bypassed.
By the way... Nerdarchy? I'm going to check them out since you recommended it.
Except magic, magic is always a solution
Like lightning swords, dragon slaying war bows, and various other weaknesses that make fights more dynamic and enjoyable for every enemy you cone across
if you feal this way in d&d you had a horrible DM you should never have to grind and insta-killing should be really hard because it's not like enemy isn't going to do anything the leveling helps the DM to know where you are at power wise it is the DM's job to make the game fun
D&D is stupid above levels 4~5. I mean, it can still be a lot fun to play, but you have to completely ignore reality (or pretend the characters are actually saiyans/demigods rather than skilled humans) to be able to go along with it.
I was a DM and a player for quite a few years, and I noticed that, unless the high-level party is kept very busy with threats appropriate to their level, they'll just act according to the reality of the game. And the reality of the game is that they can *literally walk into a small city and kill everyone in there (even the 100 soldiers city guard) without anyone capable of stopping them* . Sure, you can put some 14th level guards to match their insane, let's say, 16th level power, but then comes the question: How on Earth does this small city, in which the city guard captain was a 6th level warrior when the party visited it last year, now have a dozen 14th level guards???
The obvious consequence of this is that they'll only use strategy and diplomacy to deal with even superbly more powerful characters. Like, you'll use strategy to win over a 19th level evil city leader... you'll just completely give up dealing with a 25th evil leader (because no ammount of ambush or strategy can make your 16th level party win against him), and you'll just use strong arm tactics against lesser foes, like in that small city (because no ammount of strategy from those foes will ever threaten the players).
On the other hand, you CAN have a level-based system and still feel like you're playing with humans, fell the game is organic. You just have to eliminate concepts like AC and increasing HP for each level.... then you can still play with a superbly skilled "level 16 human warrior" who can beat anyone in said small city in a single duel (and probably hundreds in a row if they come at him one by one), but when your 16th level party decides to take down the city by force, the 2th level guards with crossbows who ambush your party in a corner become a real deadly threat. Mostly because your party doesn't have 45 AC to defend against surprise attacks and don't have 200 hit points to resist a 1d10 damage crossbow bolt.
Older D&D didn't have issue much, outside of spell caster (which by default break reality in two simply by existing). It's really in 3rd+ where everything fell apart.
1-10 was mostly empty outside of HP, and 10+ had very little of anything.
You mostly just gained proficiency points which could be spent giving you new options or made certain things you could do a little better.
But by the same token were fully expected to be able to handle stuff at 4-6 that in later additions you wouldn't even scratch at 30+.
+Icaro Andrade Rodrigues At lvl 16, I don't think that what defends the city is City Guards, but God Servants, lol.
Counter fantasy with fantasy!
I wish I could just make a 100% humans game but then there'd be stupidly overpowered men, or lvlling would be too slow
Sounds like you or your dm is pretty lazy Icaro. I can think of half a dozen ways to explain power creep or to punish the power going to characters heads. You dont have to use monsters or people out of the beastiary mate. If your characters could have made that power progression its also credible that a guard captain with a storied past could be that strong, the court wizard or even the town drunk freshly sober. Not to mention that a sufficiently powerful character could bring the attention and intervention of primordial/godly/extraterrestrial/unnatural forces to stop them abusing their position. Either that or agree to an hp cap or some other restraint on their power. If the players wont give up their power trip in favor of lore, then i guess they don't care much for the lore to begin with.
And that is why i adore playing Legend of Zelda.
Leveling system? Especially in Breath of the Wild?
Great game!
@@shadowfax333 Yeah, but they are minimal enough to force the player to still strategize in combat.
Octopath is kinda that way, too... Like it has levels and everything, but the way the BREAK system works engages the player, allowing them to strategize how to manipulate turn order and risk. Granted, this falls apart quickly when you begin fight the superbosses toward the end... but that's more like that end game spike in FF3.
Weird comparison because it’s not an RPG. That’s like praising SoulCalibur for not having a level system.
Weapon strength and hearts.
Hayden Hawley huh? What are you talking about? Legend of Zelda is Definitely and RPG!
Did you mean: Dark Souls?
Dark Souls is actually a great example, because if you know what you're doing you can run a level 1 character through the entire game and run rings around all of the bosses. Naked. Purely skill-based.
"Levelling up" weapons separate to the character lets you kill things quicker, but it's possible to complete the entire game unarmed... might take a year but it's possible.
it won't take a year lol, someone beat Fume Knight with a broken ladle and it took 40 minutes
@Lushifuria XVII
Dark souls has the same problem. Go into the starting areas with lvl 50 and a +5 sword and you will slaughter everything
Well, except, at that point, you're actively playing against design and against purpose. I mean, even sans your choice of leveling system, if you've totally cleared and mastered an area hours ago, and have had to continue to refine and improve those skills because you've continued to face harder and harder challenges, you will just breeze through everything.
I mean, that's also a thing that happens. A zone that takes someone X hours the first time through can, on a different character, take maybe a quarter of the time. In part, obviously, because they know where they're going, but also because they know the scenarios, the ambushes, the whatever, and therefore even coming back with a statistically similar, or weaker, character they still can clear it faster.
Being higher level with more HP or w/e will give a bit more forgiveness, of course, or, if you're astronomically overleved for the zone, sure, feelings of nigh invulnerability, but at that point you're going out of your way to go somewhere where you don't have anything to do to face no challenge for no reason other than "'cuz." I don't think you can count that towards bad game design points.
You could slaughter everything without leveling as well. Also, you can die at lvl 50 or higher at starting areas as well rather easily (like ambush situations) if engaged poorly. This is truer in game mode+ where even as lvl 100+, starting area enemies can be threatening if engaged inadequately.
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.
Levels don't exist, but being screwed out of good weapons definitely does. I'd rather have a game give me stuff for actually putting forth effort and keep it because of some number I've reached than have my achievements boil down to stuff that will break because keeping stronger weapons would 'break the game' in the developer's minds.
raptokvortex I don't know the game, but weapons with durability sounds perfectly fine to me - no matter how great weapon, by using it it will become dull, sharpening will take out some metal...and so on, until it' beyond useability...
+Falkon Nightsdale
There's a huge difference between well done durability and horribly done durability. Like take the original Dark Souls for example. Durability exists and is used against you, but it's something you can get around if you're properly looking after your equipment and, even then, it takes time to kick in and become a problem. In Breath of the Wild, on the other hand, I swear most weapons give you like 10-20 swings, max, before they just shatter without warning and then it's just gone with the only repairable weapon being the Master Sword, which will also break if overused for a bit.
Like going back to Dark Souls, this is kind-of like forcing the player to use Crystal Weapons for the entire game. Sure, you CAN stock up your inventory with them and get through the game, but just permanently losing your best sword just doesn't feel good and it's a huge problem with an otherwise amazing entry in the Zelda series.
Exactly what I thought
a dumbed down console game... next
One of your main arguments is that levels trivialize the game and make it easier over time. I have to say I am baffled by this idea as the only game I have ever played where this is true is Skyrim and it was an immense success. To use another popular game as an example I'll tell a little story about my experience with World of Warcraft. One time I had a group of 10 random players, myself included, get together to run through the final raid of the game's 2nd expansion. At the time, the 4th expansion had already been out for some time and we were all max level. Needless to say our stats, gear, and abilities were ridiculously overpowered for the task and we had a full team of 10/10 players. We could not defeat the final boss. We tried again and again and just couldn't do it. Why? Because we were a group of random strangers who had never set foot in the raid before and the few people willing to learn the mechanics and strategize (or at least look up how you were supposed to do it) couldn't reign in the others. Some time later I defeated that boss by myself because I took the time to learn the bosses' abilities. Even now that we are on the 6th expansion I still hear people say they can't beat that boss because they don't know how. The point of this story is that many, I would argue the majority, of games get MORE difficult once you reach max level. The leveling process gives you time to learn the rules of the game and practice your abilities, but once you reach max level the gloves come off. I can't say I ever heard anyone say that max level content was easier than low level content before, with the exception of Skyrim. The same goes for the other RPGs that I've played as well, though I think this comment is long enough without more examples.
(This looks like a good comment to add my two cents to.) Blizzard has stated that the only real purpose of the leveling system in WoW is to gate the story. For example: most characters would encounter the Burning Legion first in the 1st expansion (The Burning Crusade) before getting the chance to bring the Burning Legion to its knees in the current (6th) expansion (Legion). (Just for the record, it also serves as an easy limit for trial accounts (can play only up to level 20) and to prevent players from creating a ton of fresh characters just to obtain a certain item during an event (gifts under the Winter Veil tree with random items inside, for example).) And while in theory a player could grind, run dungeons, or pay for a boost to the levels of the current expansion then go back and experience the expansions out of order, the primary method of gaining experience in WoW has always been via questing and experiencing the story. The level system is to make sure that players who are playing through the game's story don't skip to the last chapter and read how all the epic struggling just to get to that point ends in a pyrrhic victory.
(Maybe the Star Wars prequel trilogy would have had more impact if watchers hadn't known in advance that Anakin turns evil? Just a side thought.)
I know my argument loses strength since WoW's new level scaling means the 1st and 2nd expansions share the same level range of 60-80 (as well as 3rd and 4th sharing levels 80-90). But even though you can now meet and beat the blue glowy Lich King before meeting and beating the flying elf, you're still being asked to do both long before you can meet the red glowy Lich King and bring back the flying elf. So my argument at least has half a leg.
Regarding your Star Wars comment, I don't think that's the case, since Rogue One was very popular, and everyone knew how it was going to end.
Levels are an easy way to represent character power but in some settings they have come to completely supplant it.
Ideally levels should have bery little bearing on the actual ability of a character and serve merely as a one glance representation of how powerful they are.
Case in point a stab through a heart with a rapier should be just as life threattening to a great hero as a lowwly peasant, unless there is something specific, like a seacond heart, or some magical healing at the heroes disposal.
This of course is anthitethical to the power fantasy, but thats mostly a result of rpgs downplaying the effectiveness of equipment.
A knight in full plate was an unkillible machine of death on a battlefield filled with levied spearmen.
It all works out like you say in the end game. Once you reach max level the only way to gain more power is through items, artifacts and power ups gained via quests. Low levels is just the training phase till you get to max level. Once you are at Max consider yourself the little fish in the Big pond. As lower levels you are the big fish in a little pond.
Which is why the reality that the player character can lose something. Be it weapons, class levels, or even the Stats itself. Is a very powerful drive for innovation and the struggle to survive. Having your character die then to be given a new character sheet is just as terrible as instant revives without strife. Unless those instant revives are used during high stress situations or against a target who can consistently TPK every few turns... I'm looking at you, Final Fantasy.
I can't agree more , i've recently been talking with a friend about how MMO games been dissapointing us. They all end up beeing an incredible grind and full with kids showing off "hey i've grinded more than you thus a better player".. is this what we do it for ? I looked forward to The Elder Scrolls online since i thought it would keep the TES single player feel but with opening gates to multiplayer roleplaying, i love the game that's not it , but on that level it dissapointed greatly and proven to be just another grindfest. I'd give millions for a game where roleplaying is NR 1 and you pick skills from 0 as in no classes , you are just a person , that you start to develop in the world and use adventuring and true diplomacy between players and roleplaying to group up and work together to defeat eachother or the boss everyone been strugling on. And not shout for a "high lvl plz carry".
For example a nice add : if you would want to unlock skills , for example healer, you would actually have to go do healing classes , go visit the holy lady of the lake or whatever, learn the lore and do stuff around the skills you want to add to your collection. and not "here's a hammer now make 100000 iron daggers to level up" ... but like it would in real.
If i studdied tourism , it doesnt mean thats the only thing i can do.. could still take evening classes cooking and lateron maybe even go back and learn depth in law and become the cooking lawyer, this should be possible in rpg games aswell.
bellebeltane maybe some grindy games are meant for people with too much spare time, and not really the guy who has a few hours every weekend. Why would they keep playing if there was no grind, and everyone would be decked out right from the start. We need both types of games, so both types of players can have fun, and not compromise too much
i dont mind the grind , there will always be grind :p god i play warframe XD would just like a game that evolves around roleplaying and sense of achievement by doing unique things and based on characteristics ('bit like D&D i guess) not the same thing over and over 10000 times.. so yeh give me a hybrid game between D&D , for honor with the feel of TES single player, i'd throw some money at that
You've never played Uncharted Waters Online, eh?
You just described Morrowind :D
Is Uncharted Waters Online based on the old KOEI SNES games of the same name? Uncharted Waters: New Horizons, for example?
The Gothic Franchise 1 and 2 are brilliant representations about what you are talking about (though they have levels) You are so spot on with this.
Playing Gothic 1 was an incredibly immersive experience. I remember finding the guy who could train me to be better in 1h weapons, so he says "widen your stance, hold your sword here..." Instead of a damage boost, it changed my character animations and made the swings faster and smoother. I really felt like my dude had learned how to fight better!
+wolfman11983
I think Gothic 1 and 2 don't fit into this quite as well because you definitely get muuuuuch stronger through leveling.
What makes it work however is that it also reinforces the narrative of the game. When you start out in Gothic 1 for example, you are simply some random weak schmuck that happens to be handed a message to deliver. You are not 'the chosen one' or anything and the game really makes you feel that. The first thing that happens to you is you get beat up and then you have to do a whole bunch of errand jobs to slowly work yourself up the ranks. And even then, you are never the leader of a faction or something. But you still feel first hand that you are making progress. You can fight monsters that easily killed you in the beginning. You gain people's respect and they trust you to do more difficult jobs. The leveling perfectly reflects your rise in ability and status in the world.
And like Gnarleston said: Besides the attribute leveling, you also get tangible skills like a change to your moveset. Not just some invisible damage number changing in the game data.
Super underrated series.
I completely agree with this. Leveling itself is pretty stupid. And stacking HP and stuff like that aswell.
You should be able to do whatever you want with a character, and you would level through "actions" rather than grinding.
HP should be more about pain tolerance and endurance, and if you wanna level up your "hp" you do it by exposing yourself to damage. (playing defensivly, by taking hits and counter attacking) and you level up your attack with the weapons you use. (if you use longswords, you get to unlock skills related to 2 handed swords) same thing applies when fighting opponents with such armament aswell. You fight against opponents with axes, you get to learn axe new axe skills.
And when it comes to protection and "tanking" it should be down to armor you aquire.
In other words, you technically level through "wealth and gear", everyone shares nomatter how long they played around the same amount of HP, but armor determines their protection and how many hits they can take etc.
so technically you could drag a guy with shitty gear, give him a descent sword, if he knows how to use it well, he could fight on par with everyone else, just be abit more exposed to death than the rest of the party thats running with well protected gear.
Tanking itself should be more decided by Stamina rather than HP. if your character has alot of stamina, he can take more hits, and as long as he can keep his stamina up, he can keep his defense up.
This would create a far more open and interesting world.
And one big sin that level system does, it ruins alot of content.
Low level areas rarely ever gets re-used, people go through one area then to the next and so on, hardly ever re-visiting the old areas they were in, thus all that time and effort making a beutiful looking world is thrown out the window.
Remove the level system. Make a good Monster eco-system. and you could have a mix of monsters of all variations in all areas, thus making hunting monsters and so forth, take you back to previous areas you were in.
Ontop of this, leveling through actions makes making characters more fun and immersive.
If you want to learn about swords and become a good swordsman. well you should pick up a sword, and try fight as many sword wielding opponents to become a good swordsman and unlock many sword skills and some "hidden" ones aswell!
if you want to become a magic user, well then pick up a book, wand or staff, go find magic monsters like fey or elementals, and fight them, or more interestingly if you want to be more pacifistic, you could try befriend them and have them teach you some of their magic, through special rituals or approachment methods. (like offering a special kind of candy to fey to show them that you do not mean harm, or grow certain plants in certain areas to appease the earth elemental of that area)
Or go into a library and search it through to solve puzzles and secrets that will teach you certain arcane magics or dark magic even!
I think this would make a world much more immersive and fun to play in than you standard mmorpg where you just level and grind.
Your point about the level of seriousness with which players approach the game is something I noticed most in myself when I started playing roguelikes. Permadeath in a computer game that can take multiple tens of hours to finish really makes you think about your choices, and it's a lot of what makes that type of game so enjoyable. I still have fond memories of trying for over an hour to think of a way out of a dangerous situation my character had (stupidly) gotten himself into.
The main point of a Level System opposed to all the others is the fact that it IS a gauge. Its how you know about how powerful something is. Less realistic, but better for game operations. However, I make level 1-3 characters are not adventurers, most adventurers start around level 4.
If you want to be realistic... prepare dozens of character sheets.
I've been working on something in my spare time for the last few years. It's a super stripped-down table-top RPG system that's designed to allow you to perform a full character write-up in under 10 minutes and to keep the game moving so you never get bogged down in game mechanics. And when I say "full character write-up", I'm not talking about just copying down a standardized character template like "fighter" or "rogue". I'm talking about creating a completely original character with a unique set of abilities and characteristics (provided you have a fair idea of what you want to do with the character before you start the writeup).
The game itself is designed to be a sort of home-brew-backbone system. It's designed so that anyone can take it and add anything to it they want. I've used it to run the full gambit of genres: medieval fantasy, cyber-punk, super heroes (this is my favorite), supernatural (also my favorite :) ), a variety of Sci-Fi including Star Wars and some home-brew alien adventures, Feudal Japan, time-travelers, and Wierd West. You should be able to do anything you want within the system with ease.
I'm currently running a SuperHero game for some friends as part of a play-test to make sure we can do everything we want to do. Ultimately my goal will be to release the core-rules as a free PDF so anyone can run their own home-brew games. Along with that, I want to release a bunch of expansions for a variety of properties I like. It would be a dream-come-true to get licensed to make games for things like Harry Potter, Star Wars, or Marvel (this will be hard since they already have a game). I'd also like to do some videogame conversions: Mass Effect; Halo; GTA; Assassin's Creed; Overwatch; Red Dead Redemption; League of Legends; and for younger players, maybe get them started with Pirate 101 or Wizard 101 conversions.
Anyway, if you're interested, ping me. When the rules are close to ready for wide release, I'll see if I can get you an early copy. There are no levels or classes. The character build process is very simple and organic and I think much more closely mimics how people learn to do things in real life.
Share it dude :)
I’d gladly take a look at that!
I think you mean *gammut, not gambit
There is a BIG difference between "realistic" which you reference a lot in this video and "believable". I don't think it makes a lot of sense to strive for "realism" in our games unless your goal is a simulator. "Believability", however, is always good regardless of the genre.
I just really dislike the "realism" argument when it comes to RPG's...
That’s why me and my friends only do levels as a way to tell sessions done lol my friend Chris is at Level 643