LEVELS, STORY AND RPGS TODAY!

Levels, people worry about them. People expect to finish an RPG at level 45-50. Some people even go to 99 for the fun of it. Do they matter? Do levels really matter? No. Why? Because its all about the story. For example, my games you may, for some reason beyond me, end at level 10. But you watched the character grow, evolve and face challenges. You might say "no you didn't. He or she would be at like level 50." Not really. You don't need powerful bosses, great evils and challenging puzzles to watch your character grow. What you need is well written Dialogue, NPC's, Cut scenes and a story that grips the players

People are concerned with balanced non grinding battles. Ok so sure you need those for your games so that characters do not grind. But then they introduce the stereo typical idea of Boss An is easy, B is harder, C is harder and so on and so on. It's not about the level of the character people its about the story, the interactions and the world around you. Its about how you make the world seem alive and more realistic then before (before being pre 95 when games were (and still are) hunt, kill, save big boobed girl, hump, reproduce, sequel)

Examples of games where Levels are needed:

• WOW,
• Guild Wars (LV 20 is max but still)
• Most if not all MMO's
• Most if not all RGP's and Games that incorporate some leveling system.

Why?

Because the higher the level the bigger and badder you are. The higher the level the better armor, the better weapons, spells, gold, chicks, items and what ever else your 12 year old - 18 year old hormone driven mind can produce.

You need levels, with out levels it's not an RPG

Um...think about that statement again. and read these words as you do: It's not about the levels its about the story.

So based on what's presented here, this is your discussion topic:

Why do you think (if you think) levels are so important in an rpg and how do they effect (if they effect) a games story and progression


Concept:

The idea of this post is to explain how leveling effects the character growth, how it effects what the player is limited by, be it armor, weapons, locations, story progression and so on. The idea is not to argue over the making of visual novels, the inclusion of levels or the game play vs story line but to focus on how developers include levels and how that effects the game, as stated before, in what the player can do, fight, have. It is also to discuss the concept of does a level show how the character growed as a person, a being or weather they just growed in HP, strength and dexterity.

is it affect or effect... >_> any ways...DISCUSS!


--> Note to the moderators and to the posters: This is a SERIOUS discussion. One sentence responses with "because it makes me pwn newbs" is not allowed.

Well, I'm going to assume that levels constitute any type of change in a character’s stats, there are some pretty crazy gameplay systems in rpgs nowadays!

I've always found it strange/interesting how people seem to be so focused on story in the rpg maker world. Sure, you can make a game without any levels; create a visual novel which is a perfectly acceptable genre. However, I find it really tiresome when people put all their energy into the story and then just throw in some gamplay because they think they need it. If all you've got are dialogue choices for the player then yeh, you don't really need levels and you can completely focus on turning your game into a visual novel where the singular driving force is the stories and characters.
However, as soon as you start making an rpg and not a visual novel then gameplay becomes just as important as the story (if not more so) and levels do for the gameplay what character development does for the story. It's a running tally of how you've progressed through the game and how you've developed. I’d at least get really bored if battling didn’t reward me with new numbers!

So, in other words, if you don't want levels then I rekon you should just create a visual novel. As soon as you start creating an rpg and you introduce gameplay then please treat it with a little respect and don’t pretend it isn’t there.

What Knot said.

Also it's affect. Affect is to influence something, and is typically a verb. Effect is the result of something, and is a noun.

In the end games are classified as entertainment. Keeping your audience entertained is key. Gameplay is a huge part of the entertainment business.

And so are books and movies. Visual novels too.

If you don't want to be bothered with gameplay, don't make a game. Make a book, or movie, or visual novel. It's not like you'll be missing out on anything, or the entertainment work you do HAS to be a game.

However if you don't want to bother with levels that's fine too. RPGs just might not be the genre you want to use. Maybe make social sims, like harvest moon or something. If you want that RPG epic though, just do a visual novel.

Players like having goals, whether those goals are getting to the next part of the story or to the final battle. And having obstacles to overcome keeps them feeling challenged and rewarded.

Simply dropping levels isn't enough though. You should have a replacement system or change your game to a visual novel.

Would Final Fantasy 7 be as entertaining if they removed the battles and levels and materia system? No. Definently not. And that's what these games are about, fun. The story is there to make us feel attached to the game and share something with fellow players. It's not the bastion of entertainment though.

Also I like levels because it makes me pwn boobies.

The whole concept of this is based on behaviourist learning theory, and specifically operant conditioning. Actions that are followed by desirable outcomes are more likely to be repeated. This is called positive reinforcement. Leveling up is a reward that reinforces the behaviour of the player.

Level...
Well, I just tell what I'm thinking. Most of RPG Games must have battle and leveling system. That make what it's called like RPG, just like you said. Without levels and battles stuff, a RPG Game will turn into Visual Novel which is focused on Story/Characters/Dialogs. Level involves to battle system, which it makes many RPG Game more exciting and interesting. Knot, Titanex, and Rob Riv have said all what I thought so I won't repeat again. May be you are suited with Visual Novel Style?

However, I've seen a RPGVX Game that it doesn't have level system. You just use money to upgrade your character's stats, so do you call it eveling, too? Or it's different way of leveling stuffs that it depends on money you have. Oh, that means you have to fight with monsters around your world, too. Anyway, by spending money to increase your stats is a way of leveling your characters, to make your characters more stronger.

... I will stop it here, but I like your topic. I may have some ideas to help you with the level matter. In fact, I have been trying to find the way to make players of my Project won't focus on level too much.

Responses



Its not about NOT having levels its about hows some developers focus on getting the character to level 45 or restricting the character from progressing in the story until they are level 45. or some such level. For example. Some games require the player to not enter the mystic woods of doom where lord za is until they are level 10. Forcing them to grind and do other things that they do not want to do because lets assume the story is that good.

Its also not about game play verses story line. Its about forcing the player to level when all they should do is just play the game. Some people (on other forums and blogs) have been critized because they have amazing story, amazing game play but if you play the main story line your done by level 10, because the enemeies and what not scale to the player. They are criticized because said player should be level bla by the end and not 10.





OP has been updated to say newbs not boobs I wrote this (the OP) at midnight >_>.

Again this is not about me making a game or about game play vs story line. This is about the simple fact that players expect, at least some do, to be high levels when they finish a game because it (as you put it) gives them a goal. The goal is not about, in my mind, gaining 100 levels and beating the dark lord of doom with the sword of light that you can only wield at level 650. Its suppose to be about the story, the characters development, the way they grow as people, interact with the world.

Its also not about having levels or not having levels. this thread isn't about that, its about the idea that players focus to heavily on the idea that they must be level x before they can do y. and its because of all the MMO's and typical rpg's. I believe some where in a thread you stated that MMO's make you grind and thats why you hate them, well what if you were level 5 and you couldn't progress the story until you were level 10 and all you had left to do was grind, you'd hate the game too - unless your a hypocrite and play ff7 just to level up...

with that being said, again this is not about not having levels, not about gample play versus story line but about the concept of levels and how they have been abused in games by either making us being specific levels before doing or getting bla and about how levels effect a story line. weather they properly show the growth of a character in terms of how they would grow in the real world or if there just their for stats and hp..



Again its not about weather you should implement or not implement such systems. we are not creating a visual novel here. we are creating the typical rpg. How ever the idea of most rpgs is that you cannot do specific things until you gain level X.


UPDATES

- OP: boobs changes to newbs
- OP: Concept explained.

This.

It also helps with suspension of disbelief. So at first you kill some rats, easy enough, but by the end you're expected to kill some great overlord of evil.
If you're killing something unbelievably powerful, you HAVE to level up. No ifs or buts, the final boss cannot be as powerful as the first enemy.

Exceptions include games where you can play through again, but you still have to have a progression of levels, or games where you choose a difficulty (still need the progression though, just not as much) or tactics based games.

Most games that restrict you from entering the next area until a certain level are being ridiculous, that said, it might be that the next area is just particularly tough.
If there is a good reason, then yes, absolutely. If no reason is provided, then the Developer is just trying to cram out some more gameplay time.

Take, for example, some quest which the characters know will be hard. One of them may say "We should probably make sure we're ready for this" or, "We should get in top shape for this". Character development is all well and good, but learning that John once owned a pet mouse that got eaten by Dave's cat is hardly going to make a visage of evil weaker, or empower John on his quest to save the world.

I will say this about levels, skill levels are a better idea. The ability to upgrade skills, or choose new skills upon leveling, allows customization. And if you are going to use standard levels, make each character progress in individual ways.

But yes. Levels are there to let us know we're improving. Much like a montage, only slower, and without music.

The problem isn't levels so much, it's that people can be poor skill/battle designers. I made my game so you can beat it at Level 1 if you knew how to, and have the resources to do so. I tested it myself. It's just that people rely only on "If you are level x, you can beat the boss. Otherwise, you can't". I personally believe that players should be able to win by being clever and being on natural levels, not having to spend 30 minutes per area going around in circles around a save point. Levels are not actually necessary, they really just maintain an illusion of progress to the player. There are many RPGs that either have a levelling system that is actually counter-progressive (Most games where enemies level with you), or you gain stats and skills by other means (purchasing, eating enemy meat, equipment). It's not bad to think of these things, but you can't just remove/add things for the sake of it. See how you can balance the game and make it fun.

About RPGs are only for the story--> nope. RPGs are a big mix, some very gameplay heavy, some cooperative, some very focused on atmosphere and world design, and some are good for the story. Cutscenes in fact wasn't even a huge deal until you started getting to the PS1 era, and story/gameplay were a bit more tied together before then.

I've always considered any game wherein you take the control of a character in order to discover the world he resides in (even temporarily) in order to unravel the story an rpg.

That said, most typical rpg's require some form of "level up" requirements, and generally that is done in the way of level grinding.

However, level grinding has always been a small part of an rpg, and one that may or may not be needed. What makes an rpg for me is the story, the game play, the exploration, the puzzles, and the characters.

So in that regards, early NES games like Castlevania II, Zelda II, Metal Gear, and Legend of Zelda were considered rpg's to me. Even games like Illusions of Gaia, Resident Evil (at least the original few for the Playstation), and the Metal Gear Solid games could be considered a form of rpg's. In Zelda like games, you gain hearts and magic increases as you play along, and in Metal Gear (for the NES) you rescue hostages.

So no, leveling up by traditional means of combat should not be required, nor is it needed. It's how you handle the rest (primarily the story and game play) that makes an rpg what it is.

This is a common thing i argue about, especially in MMORPGS.....

Seems you have to grind to max level THEN play the game.... I for one just play the game, if im level 50 when its over, thats fine and dandy, if im 10 thats fine too. But the story came to a conclusion and I had fun getting there.

Games that come to mind that were awesome and were very storybased and not so much level based was dragon age orgins. That game was all about the story progression....I believe the monster levels were even modified to meet your level instead of you meeting theirs if I recall.

I come from a tabletop RPG background. A lot of the tabletop games I've played are pretty much level-less. In tabletop games, RPGs really have essentially two elements: 1. role assumption and 2. narrative control. The game play that surrounds them are merely a vehicle to fulfill these two ends. Yes, this means visual novels COULD technically fill the same role.

To be honest, in my opinion, no term has been more bastardized than the way the word RPG is used in the gaming world. The reason why RPGs are associated with levels and skill choices and all that? Because of the D&D CRPGs from the old becoming codifiers. But really, all that's doing is adding a task resolution mechanic around pre-generated stories.

Basically, what happened was tabletop RPGs came along first, the game being D&D. D&D was so popular that somebody had the bright idea of making computer games based around the same idea while changing the name (so they don't get sued for copyright infringement). These games were also tremendously popular. So the japanese copied the formula and dragon quest was born. Except, they only copied the mechanics, not the essence of D&D RPGs. Why? Because coding in a GM is HARD. But the characteristics of using levels and growth as a sign of an RPG persisted. And now just about every time someone adds any kind of growth system to a game, it now has "RPG" elements, which to me almost meaningless. Dynasty Warriors has your characters becoming stronger over play, does that make Dynasty Warriors an RPG? I doubt it.

Now, WHY levels? Because levels was a shorthand in D&D to show a character's growth in power. And for narratives where the characters are supposed to become more powerful, having levels to represent that growth makes PERFECT sense. However, not all stories necessarily have that same requirement. Some stories are really just about these normal individuals trying their best. And those stories you don't necessarily NEED levels to make it work. That or maybe some games wants to reward you not just for being able to put more time into it, but for being able to play the game well. i.e. I've played RPGs where you don't actually get more powerful numerically speaking, but the player becomes more skillful to actually make it through the game. The end game is basically you just trying to bring all you've learned throughout the game to bear.

And that is a totally justifiable way of approaching the game design.

Now, if you want levels to represent character growth not just in power, but also in say, personality, THAT can be done too. Princess Maker pretty much did just that, where they used stats to represent various personality traits like morality, sensitivity and what not. Sims pretty much uses this concept and dialed it up to 11, and did VERY well with it. Would you call these RPGs? I would.

If I'm not mistaken about what you're talking about, pokemon did the level system very well. Except for maybe victory road. But for the most part, if you didn't go out of your way to avoid battles, on the routes and with wild pokemon, then you'd be strong enough to beat the gym leader. If you avoided trainers and tall grass, you'd be a bit weak, but you never had to battle unnecessarily, like, grinding.

How I feel is that you're the person playing a game, so you shouldn't have to do something you don't want to. I like story, but others might like fighting enemies. I hate when I have to do a repetitive task to advance the plot, like collecting fifty precursor orbs, and I'm sure others hate having to sit through a ten minute cut scene before they can control their character and fight. The trick of a good game is allowing the player to do what they want, I shouldn't have to fight too much so get some story, and others shouldn't have to sit through too much story to find out where the enemies are. The option to skip parts is a great one in a game.

This relates to levels like this: levels represent how you've advanced as far as game play, and character development is a measure of story advancement. They can run completely independent of each other, whether the character will decide to rescue a princess or sneak into a city shouldn't relate to if they've killed 20 monsters or 200.

from a practical standpoint, levels also introduce another layer for balancing purposes and can make it more difficult.

I absolutely feel that the battle system is a key element to any game. Why bother playing a game if it's just forcing yourself to participate in battles just so you can watch the next cut scene? Without a well designed and implemented battle system, you basically have a game where the objective is "walk across this long map and there's a cut scene waiting".

I also think that a good story and engaging characters are also very important- probably equally so. But you can always tell the difference in a well made battle system and one that was neglected in order to finish telling a story. The perfect battle can generate suspense and excitement as you master your skills and learn new ones to combat the tactics of the bosses you encounter.

Think of it like this: as you progress in levels, you gain new tools to help in battles. As you fight in random battles along the way, you begin to master how each of those skills work and how to use them in battle. Then as you reach the next boss, you have the chance to apply those skills in a well crafted scenario. If you don't flesh out a good balanced system, people are just going to spam the attack command the whole way through and bitch about boredom.

RESPONSE TO ALL

How do levels help you see weather your character has gown as a person in a "real" world? How does a level, a number, a stat change show the growth of a character through a story?

Were so worried about levels and battles and balanced this and steady that. it's not "This" as someone pointed out so bluntly. It's not based on fighting small things and becoming strong enough to wield the sword of doom. If you were a character going through a game to find the dark lord of doom where do levels come in play? in battles? in solving puzzles? what is the sole purpose of a level? to show growth? what kind? stat? do you ever see people today using levels to show actual growth of a character? to measure the characters growth in society to say "you were shy once, now you're a confident person?" no you see levels used to show the strongest creature you can kill.

If growth is measured by a level...…how do we measure growth of a real human in life...…REAL LIFE...? can that be brought into the game to show growth of a character? or are we so blinded by the stereo typical reality of what the meaning of the word level is that we are incredibly blind to the other possible meanings of it?

And continue.

Unless we look at exclusively the physical, or things that can be measured in other ways, human growth is not quantifiable. Even in games that attempt to deal with elements like morality, compassion (or the lack of it), there is some kind of gauge to follow.

That is patently not true.

Sims 3 did this to GREAT effect. Every single personality trait/value had an actual and real effect on how the characters act. Add a number and you can even make them accents instead of defining character traits.

Think about learning a martial art, you start at white belt, then progress yellow, gold, orange, green, etc... to black-- and then up to specific degrees of black belt. You could consider these as levels- and the time between each level advancement increases similar to the experience in RPGs (mainly because that's the way people actually progress in learning skills.)

Also consider a weight lifter. They progress in ability and weight, which is a numerical value. You may start bench pressing 105 lbs, but after a few months you can be up to 225.

This is absolutely right.
A lot of abilities in life are quantifiable, or at least able to be put on a scale. Even jobs are measured in levels (money/hour) with higher numbers being better than lower numbers. If you run in a marathon you will get a numbered position, and a time (where lower numbers are better). Sports have leader boards. The army has promotions. Even drinkers 'level up' in the sense that they can drink more than they could when they first started drinking (One of the most common things heard at any party is "Can't believe I've had twelve cans! When I first drank I was dead after three!" or some variation). Entertainers may measure their abilities through DVD sales, TV ratings, CD sales, etc.

Personally, I've always thought of levels as a % of physical capabilities. At level 1 you are 1% of what you'll ever be. at level 99 you are 99% of what you'll ever be. There isn't a level 100, because that last 1% is purely how YOU control the player.
In fact, there are some people who hack games and take on the final bosses at level 7 (or even worse) in which case they're play style is actually bringing that level up significantly. HOWEVER, the characters ability to take a punch and throw one is still only 7% of what it could be.

Musical ability is also measured in grades, as is intelligence (be it school/college/uni/IQ score). Pretty much everything has a quantifiable level (tensile strength, power, efficiency) and if you were to take an average of all these things where a high score is positive and a low score is negative (I'm sure you could create an algorithm) then it's entirely possible you would end up with a level.
However, in RPGs it works backwards. When you level up, all of your abilities go up a little bit. Rather than your level going up in relation to your abilities. This is because the latter would be almost impossible to implement, and the former is indistinguishable from the latter.

So yes. as nohmaan pointed out, a lot of things are 'level based' in real life.

the problem with using the more classic "level" concept from video games is that in general, your level is an all consuming identity. Your level as a warrior will have a far greater impact than any other aspect of your character that is measured. It becomes all consuming. character growth cannot be measured in just a single metric for this very reason. Character growth often requires that you not just continue on the same path, but actually have other areas shifted too.

again, this is why a personality metrics might be a better way to describe a character than say, class levels.

Your topic is focused on a very specific set of conditions that

1: I do not agree with. The strongest creature you can kill is rarely represented by your level. In most RPG's out there, there are always people challenging each other to beat the final boss with low levels, under-equipped, etc.

2: removes the generality of the concept of level that you seem to have wanted to discuss and only care about the cases where you must be level 100 out of 100 in order to beat the final boss.

What a level represents is largely based on what the dev wants it to represent.
If he wants it to be a simple measure of how much strength you have, then that's all it is. It would have nothing to do with "a measure of growth of a human in real life", nor would it have anything to do with the storyline. Unless it was designed to influence it as such.

Why do I think level is important? Good question. First, I would ask "what effect does level have on the game?" If I can't beat the final boss when I'm at level 1, then I would say yes, level is extremely important because it allows me to beat the game.

On the other hand, if you were to take my response and then ask me why level should even be used to limit how I wish to play the game - which is what you seem to have done in another post - I would tell you "that's how it was designed, if it doesn't excite you you're free to look at a game that wasn't designed that way. Like a dating sim"

The importance of "level" is fully dependent on how the dev designed the game. There isn't much to it beyond that.



How does it have anything to do with whether you're able to enter the jungle of despair at level 10 or not?



I really don't see the relevance of personality growth without any proper background.
The only examples you talked about are commercial games where publishers are looking to profit and need a way to get people hooked, and not being able to kill dark lord at level 1.

Devs typically make it obvious what happens when you level up. Or someone usually picks it up throughout the game, posts it up for discussion, and then people do some research. But if level is not even supposed to influence personality (if personality is even IN the game in the first place), then it wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Well, there are several ways of creatively handling no-level system.

1. Romancing SaGa style (also Elder Scrolls). Using skills strengthens skills, getting hurt alot strengthens defense. Unfortunately it's unwieldly, since it's hard to manage the hp. (do you refill it completely if you get more hp? do you keep it the same?)

2. No leveling, but you can find or buy weapons, or learn skills (this works especially, if there are plot events that teach you skills, but not so much if you can run to a store and buy Bolt 3).

3. No leveling, no real armor, battles are tough, and strategy based. This is sorta like the first Vacant Sky, but even more puzzle based.

4. Zelda style. Completely outside battle screen, gains based on powerups.

5. No battles, period. I've seen like one Rpgmaker game like this. It was really weird, if it involved monsters (something like blocking or pushing items toward enemies., or using traps. Or it didn't involve monsters at all (just puzzles), or running from them.

i love how people are focusing on eithe balanced battles or "non leveling systems" when its all about how does a level accuretly show the growth of a character in terms of who they are as a person but greate convo every one

Well, it doesn't. And it doesn't need to. That's the story and the player's job.

And again, I patently disagree. I've said again and again, you CAN make it so that a character's personality are mechanically measured. Once again, the best case study on this? Sims 3.

Also, what elliott's said.

EDIT: Personality can be measured in a game like the SIMs. However, the character doesn't ever Level Up. Rather they attain status.

The term Experience Point is a fine example of how early developers saw the characters as people who, upon overcoming great obstacles and foes, would become more experienced in life.

While character's can't necessarily show personal growth through combat and levels gained there thru, the story does unveil more of a character's personality and incite personal, static growth. Therefore, it's better to rely on your story and the player's feelings about the character's actions to determine the PC's growth than by any quantifiable means controlled by the developer or player.

By no means should we outright drop this idea, though. It would be cool if you could go with different leveling styles to reflect character quirks.

Example: a golem or magical ooze might start out strong, and actually grow weaker (because they aren't natural creatures, they don't heal wounds, so levellling just wears them out. An angel or dryad might not gain levels through grinding, instead having to locate different temples or groves to level up. And a wizard might need to level up by reading books.

There are ways to using metrics to quantify a person's personality.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes1.htm

You could use this a basis for identifying your character's personality and development. This combined with a morality scale should give you a good way to determine a character as something like "chaotic good" or "lawful neutral", etc.

For example, I am INTP at 22% Introverted, 62% Intuitive, 62% Thinking, and 11% Perceiving; and based on knowing my actions my morality is probably neutral. You could easily turn these into stat.

EDIT: You could even use these personality traits to enhance your combat system as well. The more extroverted an individual is, the more enemy aggro they generate. The more introverted, the better their magic proficiency. If they are more impulsive personality wise, they may deal more physical damage, and if they are empathetic healing skills are enhanced. If they have a higher perceiving score, their critical hit rate is increased.... etc. etc.

Add to the discussion with your posts. Just agreeing with someone is not enough.


I don't think levels do show the growth of characters in games at all really. Not in a technical way. However, some games have very controlled battling (IE you don't get much opportunity to train) which means the developer knows what level you are at any given time. This is then aimed at the player, who can look at their menu and see how far they've come. I often find in games that the 'golden level' is in the late teens. After this levels begin to become a number.
1-10 rookie. Your character is naive
11-20. Your character is learning, adapting, more prepared
21-30. Your character is more head strong and less passionate about what they do.
31-40. Your character is approaching levels of superhuman abilities.
41-50. The stuff of legends.
51-60. Can conquer anything.
61+ It's just a number.

at around 18 the character is still an underdog, but could probably take on most realistic enemies. Short of fighting gods, a good strategy can win the fight here (depending on the game). So if you want to talk growth, 18 is the underdog. The game shouldn't take the level past this unless some great tragedy occurs which matures the characters. This brings them up to 30. They shouldn't go past 30 unless the enemies they are facing are beyond natural, and they each character has a reason to be this strong. They shouldn't go past 40 unless they are taking on an evil of epic proportions. They shouldn't go past 50 unless they're taking on some god of anti-reality. They shouldn't have to go past 60 at all.

This is just a guideline based on my personal experience. It means nothing. This is just how I perceive characters. I usually train my characters to ridiculous levels before I finish a game. However, I do assign attitudes to characters based on their level, and I imagine other people do this too.

That said, it would be easy to actually influence the game depending on what level you are. Say situations occur in throughout the game where your character automatically changes their decision based on what level they are. Levels too high, or too low, result in varying degrees of negative outcomes. If the level is just about right, then the outcome is generally positive.

I'm not saying this would be good, but interesting, and easy to do.

I've actually seen this done for tabletop RPGs, albeit with much less numerical measurements.

Basically the way that this worked was that each character had a list of personality traits that they themselves write down. And whenever the player or the DM thinks it is appropriate for it to be a factor in their decision, the character can be "compelled" to act in a certain way in accordance to the trait. Doing so nets the player some action points. (Which players can use to power other stuff in game) It's basically a system of rewarding players for playing in character. (Yes, yes, I know that true roleplayers do not need motivation, but this just makes it easier for even the power gamers to get on board)

Used in games though, again, Sims 3 have had the best example of this type of personality metrics to guide action. Most notably, NPC action or action for when the characters are on auto-pilot. i.e. one of the traits a character can pick up is "altruist", which means whenever the character has disposable income, they will donate large parts of it to charity. It won't do them ANY good, but it makes them feel good about themselves.

The stronger the trait, the more likely they will be spurred to certain action.

What is it capable of?

This.

Seriously, if this doesn't tug at your heart strings even just a little, you have no soul.

Hard to tell when many of your examples in the page before were about beating dark lord at level 100, and not having access to certain maps at level 10.

In any case, the games that you provided would of course not show the growth of a character in terms of who they are as a person.

Rather than discussing how one could possibly implement it, it seems you're focused on whether people are doing it or not in games that already exist, and whether or not levels by themselves represent any of that at all.

I generally agree with your leveling scale idea, but again it's all relative. This is true for most battle systems based off exponential gain scales.

But there are many ways to develop a battle system. I have a few I've created that are both exponential and linear, and the levels vary in importance depending on which one.

So in a linear system being both level 1 and level 99 have some degree of importance, whereas in exponential gains level 60 might be over powered--- it all depends on the algorithms which is what I've been pushing the whole time. Every battle system is different.

But I will agree, I like for games to be completed around level 45-60, so that you can complete it without investing too much time; but you allow for the ability to invest extra time if the player is interested.

An added note: Levels can increase exponentially in the opposite way, so that you increase in skills faster early on and slower after level 60 (as opposed to the standard rising growth curve)

Can also do it by individual stats, especially if you have a choice in what to grow. In fact, Fallout 3 did something like this for simple quests. If you have a higher INT, you'll say smarter things, or be better at x skills. So it's not just "Heals more", but you have new dialogue options, skill boosts and stuff. Granted they didn't take it too far.

And yeah, honestly it is good to ask: "RPGs have this, but why is it in my game?". With any system you have, you don't necessarily have to have it just because RPGs do. It's good to put thought on it because not every game would (or should) be the same. But it has to have good thought put into it so it can be executed well. Just being original doesn't cut it if it's a pain for the player rather than benefiting the game, the player, and the world that was created there.

Levels are sort of more like a difficulty meter. "Want a hard time? Play as low as possible. Normal? Grind a little. Easy? Grind to 99." Which then makes it funny when people grind to Level 99 then complain that the game is too easy.

levels are needed for the basic grinding system employed by most rpgs, but not always. making only a few enemies in the entire game would actually be a pretty novel experience that might end well. The basic mechanisms would be lost in the plot, until they were unrecognizable. without levels you could have a party of normal people who must avoid guards and such in an attempt to kill an evil dictator (this is random plot generation) and only fight a few times at strategical points to keep action flowing. That being said, it is a novel idea and may not go over well with the rpg market.

I admit that levels can be pointless at a certain level, but there are ways around that. For instance, in my game I've implemented level caps that increase as you reach certain parts.

Essentially, I provide enough exp from the quest checkpoint completions to make your character able to skip a majority of the random battles- yes if you want to decrease the difficulty of the bosses you can grind for a bit (and at the level cap, you don't gain any more exp- though you still gain job AP).

This also addresses the issue of "I started with a wood sword, and now after fighting crabs for 10 hours I can destroy planets" by progressing the level caps through relics that unlock god-like levels.

But back to the original point; YES I do play games for the story. And I enjoy a good story very much- but without fun and fluid game play, I won't finish a game. It takes a good balance of both to make a fun experience.

Can you make a good RPG without a battle system? Absolutely. Can you make a good RPG without a deep story but awesome game play? Absolutely yes as well. But having both makes it an experience, not just a game.

Oh yeah. Also, about levels/character development: Why would that affect character development if say you are solely acquiring levels by fighting? Poked a sword in a monster, suddenly I know more about my friends!! If you gained EXP by multiple things you do (Visiting new areas in the game, mixing new things, doing new things in general, talking to team members on down times, doing quests), then it would make more sense to do so. And instead of just showing a number, you could actually take the time to show the character development to the player rather than
"Gained 3 friend points! Use them in the cash shop to buy new clothes for your character!!"

Sort of silly to show a numeric character growth when you can just show the player it by their actions/dialogue in game. Instead of "Woah they started out with 40 rudeness and are only at 19 now! He's a really well developed character... the numbers say so!!!"

LMAO Exactly Ocean's Dream. You illustrated my point precisely. That's what I was trying to convey.

Levels and Character Development/Story are two things independent and not reliant on one another, and they shouldn't be. It really is silly to infer that they should be.

Whether or not the levels are visible to the player, you're still using them as variables for your own algorithms-- isn't that still being level dependent?

No, unless you need to keep track of what events the characters have gone through (especially in an open ended one), then really it's more just the writing rather than having stats in the background to see how rude a character is.

let's be clear here. Nobody is suggesting we replace writing with statistics and call it a day. That would be TERRIBLE for immersion.

What I am saying, however, is that it is possible to use numerical personality/value metrics to create AI responses towards players in a way that is both modular and still engaging. Obviously, you can replace all of that with just lots of event branching and just write millions of lines of dialogue to cover all of your posts. But let's face it, that approach is not nearly as easy to handle, and really it's not suitable for every game. Some games want to basically railroad you on a certain path. Those games, you don't need a personality metric.

But certain games that want the whole open world sandbox approach, the personality metric approach may be the ONLY viable of approaching handling NPC interaction without basically driving the devs insane.

Well, levels aren't a MAJOR priority in an RPG, yes, the story has the upper hand, but I'll tell you a few reasons why levels may be included, as to ways you could also work around not having them.

Levels can induce balance into a game. There are many games where you will actually need to level up in order to proceed through, Because they want to grasp the fact that "Speeding through an RPG and "Ironically" leveling at the fight right before this or that boss," isn't going to cut it properly. So making levels a lesser priority can indeed make your game shorter than what it is initially meant to be. Eventually because grinding will be so easy, I could just sit there and press space for the majority of the fights and use but a fraction of the tactical side of my brain for a few bosses.

But with levels, you don't want to overdo it either, whereas forcing the player to grind for several hours straight just to keep balance for a specific boss, only to be overhauled in the next area / boss, resulting in another painful grind, can also be rather annoying, this is why a major amount of RPGs' levels end in the 40-50s. which is an ideal level if you're going for a balanced leveling curve.

Also noting the fact that exp curves for specific characters / classes can also add more interest into the leveling systems. As well as cause slow separation from the story line in question. The more grinding you do, the only things on your memory will be to do with battle, you won't even be focused on the storyline any more, It'll just be about trying to overpower or keep on balance with a certain boss.

There have been many cases where levels aren't needed in RPGs, take Final Fantasy 10 or 13 for example, they never used a direct leveling system, but instead introduced an alternative method to power your characters. Yet they amazingly kept the same balance throughout the main course of the game, until you started to get the jist of repetitive bursts of AP/CP in certain parts of areas, which of course, you'd exploit. Then, toward the high end of the game, most things became but a simplicity, the only things that really stood out were now optional bosses or marks. But that being said, they used a completely different method of exp use to catch the player out a little.

There are cases when not only did they include the Alternative leveling system, they also combined it with the traditional leveling system, take FFX-2, or FF12 for example here, they both had levels, but you had to still earn AP or LP in order for your characters to actually physically advance in terms of abilities and such. Of course, 12 took it to a whole new level with the License board system. But it is true, that introducing the two can lead to more interesting gameplay.

The obvious downside here is, that it results often in continuous grinding, as you'll have double the worth of your time gaining exp. And towards the 35+s of the game, you found yourself fairly overpowered rather too quickly, Obviously meaning the game becomes a simplicity at 61+.

Of course with my opinion, this doesn't exclude the fact that tactics to bosses will be any harder or easier, every boss has its knacks, only those with the Alternate, or Alternate AND Traditional leveling system will have a much easier time killing bosses, which can make gameplay another "A, X, Space, or Enter" spam tally.

But all in all, games that tend to focus more on the story and shade out levels a little more than usual, tend to have shorter games, or making the game play a bit too bland, but in the upper side, this makes the story shine out in bold than any other type. Leading to the character being sucked into the story and more attached to it, and eventually the player forgets the fact that the levels were an issue.

Games that focus on leveling, tend to be a drag-out. and the player can loose sense on what the actual game is about, and instead focuses on trying to keep up with the strength of a game. Eventually when they pass it, it will be "Oh, wait, what was the story again?". It can also have a long term affect on the high level end of the game, as you'll already be leveled enough, bosses will be easier than usual.
but on the upper hand, this will obviously add more tactical planning to bosses, if they choose to do it the harder way of course.
and if the developer can add a "Tactical Handicap" (meaning you can't just go straight for the buff, attack, heal, attack, heal, special attack, ownage.) for each boss. then this can be an ideal choice.

And games that introduce both methods of leveling can be another longer drag out, and an obvious limit to their tactical planning, making the course of the game too hard will result in more grinding, and making them too easy makes the game shorter and more bland, and that being said, the developer knows not what level and/or how far they are on the license board, sphere grid, or whatever. Which can lead to a planning blip often, meaning they can make a boss too easy, or too hard. Which they often try to avoid.

So all in all said, each type of level system has it's affect on the story, and how each shines in their own way, and how each of them falters where others don't, but this is just my penny in the hat.

The real question here is do you really need growing POWER levels to show case character growth. All this talk about levels or alternate leveling system or what not all basically comes down to one single simple notion: The character becomes more powerful as the game progresses.

Reminds me of valkyrie profile.
Just trying to figure out whether a character should be easily jealous or not was quite a headache.