This is one of the most perceptive and intriguing observations I've seen anyone make on this forum in quite some time. I think you nailed something that I'd been wondering about - the instant, unwavering and apparently largely reflexive hatred that some have for numbers, in any form at all - the notion that a number applied to something in the game is axiomatically a bad thing, solely because it's a number.

I'd point out though that in making that distinction, you answer your own question of "Why on Earth would I (or anyone else) want that?"

I could go either way (or both), just depending on what would work best in a given game. But then, both by inclination and experience, I tend toward a balance of left and right brain perception.

Much fertile ground for rumination there.... thanks.

I do agree.

Have you played Riven? The game had (still does) beautiful graphics, and a beautiful gameworld. It was a game where most players (myself included), play themselves as if they were there in those circumstances.
[In the context of computer games], most people know themselves well enough to play this way; but in RPGs (well... RPGs where you make or are given another character that is markedly different from yourself), this does not seem (to me) to be as easily done ~without stats. Its easy to act like one's self in the game, but to act like the PC you have to know them as well as you do your best friends, and you can't really ~You just met.

This is what Stats are good for (on the player side). A bard will (usually) be gregarious and at ease in front of a crowd, a Wizard might be confidant enough to gamble they are competent to summon a monster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-rQW5B87xY). The warrior on the left can speak before the King's court, while the one on the right can't make a toast at the local Pub. When I see an RPG without stats I see limitations to role playing due to unclear boundaries, or non-existent options.

I loved that in 'Realms of Arkania' my thief could enter a tavern and perform if they were skilled at it, and get tips from the patrons (and either a musical or acrobatic performance at that) ~and they could still risk pick pocketing the crowd.

:foodndrink:

Sense of accomplishment.

I like chess. But I think I don't want to control my character like I control a rock in roleplaying games. I want the action, I imagined and yes I imagine the battles very visceral in my mind, very dramatic. I also like it realistic as I imagined. It is a computer game, let's harness that power.


Do you think they can't differentiate physical strength and magical strength and apply the visuals correctly? I think trying to guess the strength of the next guy has amazing roleplaying value, plus having some visual cues is also a lot better, especially in this game, first person perspective is for more visual detail. All the hard work for visuals must pay off.


These can also be found in RPGs like Morrowind. The dialog system in Morrowind is really powerful, can conditionalize these kind of things based on race, gender, personality, speechcraft, factions and even on what you're wearing(based on skills, attributes, based on the quests you have done, items in your inventory, weather, virtually everything.). There is also the dynamic disposition meter(can change based on general things(gender, race, faction alliances) and individual relationships) which will work in conjunction with that dialog system in general.

if they removed levels you would need some other means of increasing your stats.

TES is and always was an Action RPG.

Lets harness the power :goodjob:
(How about a Diablo 2 clone that uses the CUDA based GPU for AI, terrain generation, and a state of the art chat-bot that loads personality quirks and profiles for all NPCs; and with database access to everything witnessed (or not), and by whom that transpires in the game from day 1 to the present, and applies that to the NPC's esteem of the PC and their reputation)? And/or have the game engine be capable of logical consequences to in-game events like the flooding of a valley by the PC's failure to save a dam from invaders ~and every town that falls within the fluid calculations indicating the spread on the generated terrain, becomes flooded, perhaps washed away, or their mine gets closed due to it filling up with lake water?

:lol: (yes I'm being serious.)

There have to be visuals?

How exactly?

Is there personality in Skyrim? ~ I gave two example RPG's but they aren't the only ones; Morrowind as you say. :shrug:

I actually preferred Myst over either of the two sequels I've played - partly just because it was a whole new discovery and partly because the puzzles were a bit more in keeping with the world. The puzzles in the later games seemed a bit forced. But yes - I understand what you mean there - that world svcked me right in in a way that few have done. But that part of it is just one aspect of "roleplaying," and arguably the least significant, since any well-designed game with well-done atmosphere can do the same thing, while providing none of the other things that tend to go along with "roleplaying."

And I absolutely agree with the desirability of background stats, and for exactly the reason you state. I never play as "myself" in TES games - I haven't done that in years. As soon as I figured out how to legitimately play an entirely separate character, I never looked back. And yes - underlying stats are a part of that. And yes, as the scornful naysayers are wont to say, I suppose I can just make believe that this character is notably strong and that character is notably dumb, but at some point I can just make believe that the character exists and is in a world doing stuff. The game is supposed to provide things so that the player doesn't have to imagine them - that's really its only reason for being. The only issue in that sense is what things it should provide. The "argument" that it shouldn't provide this or that thing because I can imagine it instead is flatly invalid, since I can ultimately imagine everything and just not bother with the game at all.

To the specific topic though, out of all the things that the game provides, I'd count "level" as one of the ultimately least important, and I actually think that all the rest of the progression that's currently keyed to level not only could be handled without it, but could be handled better without it. None of the rest of the stats need to be eliminated (and I'd certainly add back in some of the ones that have been eliminated) - they'd simply increase (or decrease, maybe) incrementally rather than all at once at this artificial point of "level-up."

For whatever that's worth....

Oh cool you have google! Because certainly nor you or i have been here long enough to know that. I left that alone for the people who can actually reference to it.

OT: I've actually thought about this and to me not having levels would be good in some ways. It would kind of make me feel like i'm just getting stronger, and am better at the game, instead of just being some number. But having levels also helps too. As others have mentioned, it helps bethesda add features (like raise your health, stamina, etc. at a certain level). It also helps you track how far you are with your character. Either way is fine for me really.

Hey OP

You should of turned this into a poll. Would of been interesting to see how divided we are. I vote for getting rid of levels.

When it comes down to it, the final fantasy series is all about levels, and (controversially) I hate them. I find them linear and boring, just a story that you get dragged through, whether you want to or not. I really don't count them as good RPG's because there is no way to stamp your choices on the main character. I have to be honest I stopped playing them before the most recent incarnations so i might be out-dated. My point is that levels and stats don't always mean freedom of choice, in fact they can mean quite the opposite.

Following the same logic, I would count the Diablo clones of the world as action games, not RPG's, and again they are all level based. It all comes down to personal opinion as to what you want from a RPG. I want immersion and character development, I don't need levels fot this, just good game mechanics.

When I did commercial art for hire, I would often get asked, "Make it really nice and with detail; but don't spend a lot of time on it."

IMO levels are good game mechanics; and [to me] this equates to "I don't need air, I just need to breathe". :shrug:

Levels are not the only method, but I have not seen many methods that I have enjoyed as much.

**Are incremental skill improvements not a form of leveling? ~Its just that you cannot easily describe advancement now. Before you could speak of a 28th level character, but now you can only refer to them as... by hours? (Even so, that does not accurately describe their approximate abilities). You'd have to run through their skills one by one or describe their top few... I prefer levels.

The peeve that I have with an improve by doing method is that while its realistic that the PC improve by picking locks; you don't normally spend your time doing that (except maybe if you're at home picking tumblers from a box of locks & parts). I like to assume that my PC has some down time, and handles their own life (and skill maintenance). With levels, I can adjust their improvements to suit in one action, and get back to the game.

don't understand OP's post but i agree to some degree. Levels exist in skyrim for a few reasons: to give us intervals at which to increase our health, stamina or magicka, to allow us to pick perks, and to help scale enemies to our level. If there is another system for that then AWESOME

Well... I love the FF games (or at least the early ones - I lost interest with VII), but I'd agree that they only barely qualify as RPGs, and for precisely the reason you state. The only real influence you have on the path of the game is which characters you put in your party and specifically how you equip them (and even that last is generally a contrived choice, since there's usually only one current best item that each character can equip at a given time, so you're just trading up from the previous one to the new one). FFVI is still high on my list of all time best games though, RPG or no.

This brings me back to the left/right brain thing that Gizmo mentioned earlier, and to my own long-time hatred of false dichotomy. I reject pretty much all of the arguments that go along the lines of "this game contained this element and it wasn't an RPG, so that's not an RPG element." As far as I'm concerned, it's really blindingly obvious that ALL of the things that people cite as a part of RPGs should be considered a legitimate part of them. I really don't get the reasoning that says, "No - we need this thing INSTEAD OF that thing." Why not "in addition to?" Why the hell is anybody arguing that we need visual representations of character progress INSTEAD OF stats, or stats INSTEAD OF a visual representation of character progress? Why not both? Why not an immersive world AND realisticallly rendered characters AND real-time combat AND skill checks AND complex NPC interactions AND a rich story AND whatever else might serve to make the game just that much better?

Just had to unload that........

As long as my character feels different from my other characters and I feel I'm progressing in certain areas of expertise I wouldn't care to much titles of level, skill, or class.

But they do help tell where you are in general power.

I am playing the 'devil's' advocate today.

I will admit that I only read the first few pages of the thread, but I did not see any argument for 'levels' other than wanting to see some numerical value that tells them that they are playing correctly. It is entirely possible to reach level 20 in Oblivion and have absolutely no ability to defeat anything in combat. It was even possible to make a class that excludes any combat skills. So all of the arguments about "how will the game know you can defeat stuff" are a gross exaggeration. The game could use your total skill levels to determine such things the same way since all levels boiled down to was at level 41 the character has 400 more skill points than level 1. Attributes and other values would vary greatly depending on skills used and attribute modifiers selected. I do not see how it would be any different without levels. You use skills, the character becomes more effective when using said skills, your character can overcome more obstacles by using said skills, and the end result is progression has taken place. That can all be done without levels.

Please do not regurgitate the "CPRGs have always used levels since the dawn of time and the world is square because that is what everyone has told me!" argument.

Off Topic:
If the game were designed so that you never have to look at a statistics menu it would still be an RPG with the only difference being that you would not be able to drool over a menu instead of playing the game. If you can tell that the character is becoming more powerful and effective with the various skills (skill 'levels' are no even necessary since the character can receive abilities and enhancements in a skill proportional to the time spent using using it) it uses why do you need a stat screen to tell you what you already know? If you character finds some activity to be difficult it would indicate that you need to practice related skills. I would prefer that over looking at a stat screen to determine if my character can do something before I even attempt it.
.

I for one always thought that HP should be the same for everyone and vary about 10% based on race and 5% based on start-game stats and never change.

That should work since a character gains effectively more health by acquiring better gear and developing defensive skills. Increasing health is just redundant.

I haven′t read the rest of the thread but page one. Main reason why levels can′t be removed entirely? Answer: It would not be an RPG.

End of story. :whistling:

Umm... with all due respect, TES has not always been an action/RPG per se. It is a CRPG, and perhaps the only true RPG (i.e., a game that allows role playing based on developing characters on what they do rather than other arbitrary concepts like XP). There is very little comparison between a game like Deus Ex and a TES game, at least as far as I am concerned (and I go back to the original release of D&D and AD&D for role playing comparisons, mind you).

In fact, TES has changed to becoming more action and less RPG with the inclusion of stuff like minigames (something that has no place in a role playing game since it doesn't depend on a character's abilities, but rather the player's skill). I can see this trend being a reason why some posters have suggested just removing any facade of being an RPG and simply make it an action game. On the other hand, I'd much prefer for it to go the other way and get rid of the action elements involving player skill as such concepts do not belong in an RPG (i.e., RPGs are about playing a role as a character and doing things the character can do... or cannot do, as the case may be... but they do not have anything to do with the skills a player may or may not have).

And a variety of posts in between point out any number of RPGs that don't have levels. :shrug:



---------

My view:

Yes, there are good games that don't have levels.

But, there are also good games that do.

I don't see any compelling reason why levels are automatically a "bad thing" that needs to be grown out of - different game mechanics work in different systems. They're still valid even if not every game uses them.

Levels are part of the RPG system. I love it and i hope it never goes away

And I would prefer knowing my PC's abilities as well as they do, before depending upon them. My take on this is that a character should know their own limits and level of confidence. If I'm roleplaying a character that is going to backflip over an attacker; then that character must ~positively must, have 100% confidence in their ability to do this. You don't practice these things in a real fight; and you don't want to find out that you need practice after breaking a few ribs and making it easier for the attacker to succeed. No one actively tries to become a blackbelt by exploring dark alleys and fighting off muggers; they train (level by level :laugh:) to reach the point where they can defeat one or more attackers (and they know it).

I don't agree. Health is not Hitpoints ~not entirely. Hitpoints are an amalgam of physical health and experience (hence you get more of them with experience ~though that's a bit simplified). Two athletes (Twins!) get punched in the chest... one is a sprinter and one is a boxer, both weigh the same, are built the same, and have the same general diet and health ~but one of them gets punched all the time, and is used to it, and even instinctively parries a bit, while the other lacks these habits and falls to the ground in pain.

*Both take the hit, and take identical damage, but the boxer does not react the same way as the sprinter to the hit.

You can't take it 100% literally, and realistically its not the same for a knife (say..), but in general, this is what hitpoints seem to represent in most of the RPGs that I have played.

Exactly. If levels didn't exist, the designers would create the exact same variable to use for tracking and various calculations: loot, balancing, triggering quests, etc. The only thing that would be accomplished is hiding the info from the user.

How do you compare the expertise or power or whatever of 2 different characters? You develop a numerical abstraction that summarizes the current state of the respective characters: a level. You can change some of the mechanics, you can change the name or hide the stat, but it will still be there.

I think, as of now, you know me better than my mother! lol:

I would totally want that Diablo 2 clone. woot: I'm actually drooling now. drool:

Is this what gpstr wants? Visuals and stats go along:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u9-AdPAOy0

only stats and simple visuals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DdMmQ0VgzY

(I actually like Kalie's cover.)



There need to be visual? If there are supposed to be visuals, yes. You described visual differences between someone who is magically strong and someone who is physically strong. Don't shoot me for trying to fulfill your imagination.


If you know his stats and your stats. You can calculate a x to y spell on z area for w duration which will kill him instantly. This is more RPG given examples in this genre which rely on strategy games origin too much. I think this has nothing to do with roleplaying and actually hurts it.

My character would never make a calculation like that. In my imagination of the scene, my character would notice a fur coat on enemy and try a fire spell, preferably a small amount of mana, not specific but close to one third maybe and watch what would happen and act accordingly, real-time. It is completely visual for me. So I want complete realization of my imagination in video game format which offers visuals+sound+interaction. As good as it gets, with technology.


You can add Morrowind to that list then. Like I said, conditionalizing works on many things, we may lost personality as an attribute but now speechcraft with perks can generate more conditions. And very specific and related ones this time. I think different perks in a skill is more handy than a 0-100 range. That range still can have uses, but I mean for more specific things, perks are better. I wish there were even contradicting perks for better customization.