Except for Daedric Shrine quests...

levels are redundant with skills and we should get rid of them or the game will be to difficult to get into

/sarcasm off

Especially Daedric Shrine quests.

Want to summon Nocturnal? Be stealthy. Want to summon Sheogorath? Be insane. Want to summon Molag Bal? Yikes.

Again, seems like a huge improvement to remove the leveling requirements there. Just holding back true immersion and a more realistic roleplaying experience.

And how exactly is the game going to recognize insane, and yikes? what if I sneak all the time and I consider that insane..whats the game going to do.
so far from what I've read its a mixed bag to whats yes and whats no, if the game were so advanced that it can watch the player and deem right down to the point of dust what the player gains, loses, etc etc fine, Radiant story doesnt stretch -that- far. and quite frank yes I do have a problem with the game metagaming me, the world exists and the player encounters it, not the player exists and the world encounters them.


would it be awesome? sure, I am seeing a light ting of Cognitive dissonance that attributes can take a dive but Levels can't? and barely anyone addressed GP's post on the first page :teehee:

I never paid attention to levels or stats in past games, or rather I did not obssess over them it was clear to me after a glance at seeing what my character can and cannot do with his strenght, magicka etc etc I have an issue with one moment there are rats and mudcrabs and then all of a sudden its filled with minotaurs the next AND all of that serving no purpose because the Loot is worthless or didnt change. theres alot of things RS can do to remidy this but at the moment Im undecided.

No idea about "yikes", but insane is easy: Pick the [Insane] options in dialogues often enough ...

Like ...

"[Insane] That old emperor dude just totally got killed by those assassins and gave me that amulet. No, really. I didn't have anything to do with his death. And this totally isn't his blood on my weapon."

Hmm, I agree... to a point, but I think the distinction between an adventure game and an RPG, and what is the core of an RPG, is the freedom of choice. And one of the most common outlets of choice is character development, which is often manifested in skill and character choices when leveling up. It is impossible to "role play" without choice. Without choice the game becomes a linear script in which your character is just an actor reading lines.

An adventure game is an interactive story- usually linear, while an RPG is a story you and your character by and large create or individualize. Ideally, the choices the player makes for the character determine the story, as well as shape the character. Many RPG games ride the line dangerously close to Adventure game. You are often given a specific predetermined character. The distinction is- although you can't be who you want to be, (like you generally can in TES,) you can still make choices for your character, and alter your character's development. The Witcher series is a good example of this.

As Hannibal Lecter might say, "levels are incidental." They mark intervals of character advancement and development, but are not essential even to character development. Choice is the root of character development, as well as the root of roleplaying and making decisions on behalf of your character. Levels are an easy way for developers to give choice to the players whom make decisions for their characters.

In Skyrim, the effect levels have on the game is comparatively very slim. The attribute of skills is determined primarily by your choice of action, and not as skill points chosen for your character at level ups, (as it is in most RPGs.) In fact, levels appear to only assess mobs, (and only to some extent,) and to set a standard for giving the player the choice of Perks. If levels were removed very little would even be necessary to change to keep the game basically the same. I don't think levels can't be removed entirely, but why bother?

Obviously, being a computer game, and being that computers don't understand subjective, there is a need for numbers to be used in representing progression within the game. However, this progression does not necessarily has to come in "levels", or "perks". removing these concepts would actually make for a much better RPG. It would take a whole lot of typing to explain the concept in its entirety, so I am just going to use a few examples here to express my point.

Take a skill like armorer. In Oblivion, the more you fixed stuff, the more your armorer skill increased. This was a numerical increase obviously (can't get away from that), and you were told of this increase in a very graphical representation: you could see the percentage increase in your stats window, and when you reached a certain numerical level, you were told you were at this level and now you were apprentice/master of armorer. Now, what happens if instead you are not told of your numerical advancement? But instead, you start trying to fix leather armor that is totally broken and you can't wear, and you fail the first time, the second time, the third time.. then the fourth time you can fix it to a certain level of effectiveness and now you can wear it. Effectively, you have reached a certain numeric level (4th time you tried to fix leather armor) but you are not told in-game with the game pause and message you reached a "level". You are just now able to fix leather armor. The more you fix leather armor, the better you get at it, the more effective the armor is that you fixed. Again, this is obviously all tied to numbers, there is no other way, but now the concept of set levels as been removed.

Now, about perks. Perks are awarded when you reach a certain numeric level. You gain this much "experience", Boom!, here is a perk. And if we take Fallout's perk system as an example, the perks granted can be totally arbitrary and not reflect what you have done in-game. For example, what would be the logical explanation (ie, suspension of disbelief) for the Animal Friend perk? None.
In a sense, Oblivion had it almost just right with the training the player could get from different people . Instead of outlandish (or even related) perks by level, a system of training by masters in the craft would make much more sense to an RPG than "you reached level 10, now you can chop heads off". So, say you want to be able to chop heads off. You find a master swordsman and ask him to do so. The master swordsman can tell you "you are not ready yet". So, you go out and fight some more. Then you come back to the master, ask again, and he tells you "you are still not ready". How does the master determine you are ready for training? Well, one way could be, the game could be making a calculation, in numbers, as to how many fights you have had, how much damage you have dealt, how much damage you have received, and when you reach a certain set of numbers, then the master tells you "now you are ready". But again, you are not told by a GUI that you reached this numerical level and now you can choose to chop heads off.

And the same would go for enemies, damage dealt/incurred by them, etc. The usual stuff like what armor they have, what weapon they use.. maybe have even their own system of skill advancement. But again, the player needs not be told in numeric fashion. When you encounter an enemy, you shouldn't know right off the bat how easy or hard the enemy is based on the numeric level you are at.

I like levels and wouldn't wanna miss them.

With a well rounded skills and perks system I could see the removal of levels being pulled off fairly well. Add back in a FO style attribute system and I think you would be looking at a very nice organic feeling game while still allowing for options in advancement and customization. At the very least it would remove the problems with level scaling. :hubbahubba:

No its not, its an action RPG.

The only sense that it makes is your Health, Magicka and Stamina levels. If they invented a way in which those could be adequately governed by skills and perks, I see no problem in removing them.

ECIT: there should be a poll for this.

No its an RPG with Action elements


No its an Action with RPG elements


See how that works?

TES IS an Action/RPG but I'd prefer to keep my levels anyway.

Duh as stated by someone prior it was never flaunted to be absolute RPG, but then what exactly is absolute rpg? it needs to be turnbased? nothing defines exactly what an RPG is, but Action is a given since ALL games have action.....


as I said see how that works

For a plethora of obvious reasons.

Yes lets remove levels completely and replace them with Lorkhan Heart Shards find four and you will receive increase of your abilities. :teehee:

Basically each point becomes a level, "This adventure is suitable for a group of four to six level 300 characters". That's how it sounds in my ears.

Semantics.

It doesn't matter where the line is drawn on whether something is an RPG or not. Deus Ex is a brilliant game regardless of whether or not it falls more into the RPG camp or more into the shooter camp. I think we can make a pretty objective case for what is better or worse at being an RPG, however. RPGs are seeking to model reality as closely as possible, including the intricacies and differences between different actors in that world.

So if a game is offering less of these distinctions or otherwise models the world less accurately, I think we can argue it is a less pure role playing game. The purest form of an RPG is perfect simulation.

Exactly. As I noted earlier, it's ironic that many of the arguments that have been applied, mostly poorly, in support of eliminating attributes REALLY DO apply to the removal of levels. This is one of them. Tie derived attribute increases to skill increases directly, rather than putting level-ups in the middle of the system, and you end up with the EXACT SAME progression - just without the "middleman" of level.

This is a very significant point that ties in with the much-maligned level scaling in Oblivion. One of the biggest problems with level-scaling, and also the "problem" that led to skill grinding in pursuit of attribute bonuses (which has falsely been claimed to be a problem of attributes) is that it was very easy, with a major skill set that didn't include enough combat skills, to level up to the point that powerful enemies started to appear without having developed the combat skills necessary to defeat them. So, often, players hit about level 9 after spending a bit too much time picking locks and talking to NPCs and end up getting their asses handed to them by black bears who aren't impressed with their security and speechcraft skills. If the system relied on combat skills for whatever level scaling it used, rather than the far less descriptive level number by itself, then most of that problem would be eliminated immediately.



The blindingly obvious way to handle unique items is to put them in places that are near impossible for a character to reach until s/he possesses sufficient skill and to have them guarded by creatures who are near impossible for a character to defeat until s/he possesses sufficient skill.

That's obviously the way they should be handled anyway - if the items are easy to access, then they wouldn't be there at all, since someone else would've long ago taken them.

because the elvel systme gives you a feeling of progression and a way to manage your skills. I LOVED games like bioshock and system shock but I believe the level system is something that should stay in TES

The best tabletop RPG's are without leveling systems, imo. Call of Cthulu, Vampire the Masquerade to name a few famous ones...

You start with attributes, skills, abilities... and if you've got a good GM they improve in a way that makes sense.
Studying improves your academic skills, fighting a lot will eventually make you stronger, you conspire with an elder vampire so that he agrees to be your mentor, etc...

As you probably know, there's a lot more roleplaying to a tabletop RPG's than any video game ever made...

So, your point is?

seems to me that even if you do remove them, you'd still need a "level-like" system in place, unless you just want the character progression to be from gear alone. so, why bother?

mod to taste.

Fallout was initially http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_13:_A_GURPS_Post-Nuclear_Adventure ~and was supposed to be the best implementation of GURPS for the PC.


Why on Earth would I (or anyone else) want that?

It could almost be like... Chess with animated sword battles, and having to actually defeat a piece to take the square. Game mechanics are there for a reason ~they are not always some kludge needed because it couldn't be done real time 'back then'. They also don't have to be realistic to be good.

In RPGs, I would want a solid level and stat based system regardless of technological possibilities. Having the PC be visually more muscular instead of having a defined strength stat [for example] is virtually useless to me, and practically detrimental too. All it does is shift the observations of the player from left brain to right, and makes you waste time guessing if one guy is stronger than the next ~and that doesn't even take into account spellcraft that could make someone as strong as the Hulk, but still thin like Bruce Banner. :shrug:

In my experience (and perhaps preference), the better RPGs have always been the ones that apply plausible labels to solid mechanics instead of basing mechanics on the labels themselves.

---

Another example of lacking [non-visual] mechanics is... the Charisma stat. Lacking this, there is no indication of the character's social effect on others, so you cannot know (engine side) if the PC is a Jacky Chan or a Steven Seagal (or a Rodney Dangerfield); but RPGs like Fallout and Planescape will depict situations where the character's personality allows them to get people to acquiesce; or open up about sensitive matters; or [theoretically] just instinctively like them on sight. This will depend on perks in Skyrim? (or be absent?)

Always need to be some sort of levels man... Will become too much of an action game without some lists and skill management.