What is the purpose of "Leveling Up"

[Zach Morris]

What is the purpose of "Leveling Up" in RPG's?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Reward the player for successful play by making his or her character feel more capable.

[Judge Hades]

Yes, but in some games your character levels up too fast. It seems in recent games that the sole reward for the character is levleing. Developers need to get off their collective keesters and give players rewards other than leveling.

 

Leveling 3 times in a half hour isn't rewarding. Its annoying.

[Zach Morris]

Yes, but in some games your character levels up too fast.  It seems in recent games that the sole reward for the character is levleing.  Developers need to get off their collective keesters and give players rewards other than leveling.

 

Leveling 3 times in a half hour isn't rewarding.  Its annoying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True. I was truly getting annoyed getting level after level on Peragus. I got to the point where I just left the L on my character and went about my business.

 

I think 1 aspect of leveling is this. You start out the game. Enemies are weak. You can take them out no problem. Then you start getting introduced to new enemies. They start getting to be a real challenge. Then that level up comes and now you are able to keep up with your new enemies a little better.

[Llyranor]

I think 1 aspect of leveling is this.  You start out the game.  Enemies are weak.  You can take them out no problem.  Then you start getting introduced to new enemies.  They start getting to be a real challenge.  Then that level up comes and now you are able to keep up with your new enemies a little better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's uncanny

[Zach Morris]

I think 1 aspect of leveling is this.  You start out the game.  Enemies are weak.  You can take them out no problem.  Then you start getting introduced to new enemies.  They start getting to be a real challenge.  Then that level up comes and now you are able to keep up with your new enemies a little better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's uncanny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah but do we see that in games now?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Yes, but in some games your character levels up too fast.  It seems in recent games that the sole reward for the character is levleing.  Developers need to get off their collective keesters and give players rewards other than leveling.

 

Leveling 3 times in a half hour isn't rewarding.  Its annoying.

What does that have to do with the purpose of leveling?

[kbned]

in obsidian's case it is to explain the main plot of the game. in every other case it is to give the player the feeling of progression, to adjust the pc to how the player wants their character to be (strong, dexterous, etc), and to give the player a reason to do whatever there is to do for xp.

 

i think troika had a pretty good way of leveling, you get xp for progressing the story, not for every kill. so you dont have to kill and loot everyone, you just have to think of the rp part of the game instead.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Purpose of leveling is to see parts of the world you couldnt see if you didnt.

 

Would be a very strange world if a Dragon was as tough as a rat wouldnt it

 

Leveling isnt the only way of course. I played FF II recently and it's system was totally alien to my ethos. Which is put things down fast and hard and only use magic for a big punch. After about 8 hours my characters got to a point where a single blow would kill them. Because they hadnt been beaten up enough to raise their hp's.

[Kaftan Barlast]

personally I dont like levelling but here's the top points of it

 

 

-easy to manage the upgrading of your character since you get a bunch of Xp to "shop" for rather than the

 

-levels systems are easy ways to gauge a characters relative strength and ability

 

-level systems gives rules a very handy number to base everything from which spells are accessible to if the char is worthy to utilize the Brick Sh*thouseof K'phlegm

[taks]

i think troika had a pretty good way of leveling, you get xp for progressing the story, not for every kill. so you dont have to kill and loot everyone, you just have to think of the rp part of the game instead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but if you want to rp as a hack-n-slash player, you get screwed with this idea. this has been debated to death, btw.

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

I personally liked BG1 way of doing it .. and entire game (looong) with only 7 levels ..

[Nick_i_am]

Leveling on peragus is ALMOST justified because of spoilers.

[Gorth]

I'll join the club of those who thought the idea in VMBL was good (execution was lacking a bit, too many xp towards the end, but still).

 

Getting "xp" for accomplishments within the game, whether it be solving something, avoiding something, finding something, whatever. If killing a "boss" is necessary for the story, by all means, give a few xp for that too.

 

That you could actually use the "xp" as a currency to "buy" improvements for your character was a nice touch.

 

It was nice not having to run around and kill every single killable bystander and rat just to maximise your xp in an incredible boring way (ok, there were ways to maximise xp, but killing sprees, may they rest in peace, were not it).

[Gromnir]

people like to level. we can take or leave, but if Gromnir were designing a crpg rule system we would have quick leveling... lots of levelling. 'course, there is no reason why a 20th level character need be particularly powerful. a rabid wolf could be a 10th level encounter if that is what you wants. a dragon might be a 100th level encounter. it not matter, but the point is that the you can has as many or as few levels as you wish... the main difficulty would be making such a fast level-up experience rewarding and balanced.

 

d&d is not the only system. d&d has established that a 20th level character is extremely powerful. some demon lords gots CRs in the low 20s. d&d is a crappy system for a crpg in part 'cause it takes so few levels to become Superman in Chainmail.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[sicarius]

There isn't one.

 

Yes, your character's capabilities increase - at the same level that your opponent's capabilites do. The oft-cited analogy of a treadmill is accurate. Lots of levelling is simsply lots of running in place. Then again, levelling has been passe in real gaming systems for more than 15 years, the lurching undead carcass of d20 aside.

 

The best PnP gaming I've ever been a part of has had little to no increase in the player's skillls. Characters start of as competant, heroic individuals and spend all of their time, you know, roleplaying and enjoying the story. Roleplaying games, not levelling games.

 

It's perfectly understandable that earlier computer RPG designers used D&D-based systems - it's what was around then. It's simply awful that we still have to deal with I-don't-want-to-think-how-many-years after Wizardry. Hit points? Classes? Ugh.

 

I'd like to think that, someday, someone is going to brave and actually try something different. It'll never happen. The sub-genre of PC RPGs is too ill.

[pulp]

personally I dont like levelling but here's the top points of it

 

 

-easy to manage the upgrading of your character since you get a bunch of Xp to "shop" for rather than the

 

-levels systems are easy ways to gauge a characters relative strength and ability

 

-level systems gives rules a very handy number to base everything from which spells are accessible to if the char is worthy to utilize the Brick Sh*thouseof K'phlegm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I pretty much agree. That and the above are fundamental ways to inform the player that their PC has changed in some way, usually positively.

[pulp]

people like to level.  we can take or leave, but if Gromnir were designing a crpg rule system we would have quick leveling... lots of levelling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I particularly agree with this, and feel this is more viable. I'd rather have quick leveling and the ability to make choices on how to focus certain aspects of my character's development from the get-go and not have to achieve a certain level before certain abilities become unlocked.

[J.E. Sawyer]

There isn't one.

 

Yes, your character's capabilities increase - at the same level that your opponent's capabilites do.

There are a lot of games where this really is not true. One of the best examples is the original Pool of Radiance. The enemies in that game tend to increase in power at a much slower rate than the PCs. Even when the PCs are in the Wilderness, there are still major quests where the PCs are fighting kobolds. Sweeping eight kobolds at a time feels a lot more satisfying than whiffing once a round against them in the slums of Phlan.

[Gromnir]

"Yes, your character's capabilities increase - at the same level that your opponent's capabilites do. The oft-cited analogy of a treadmill is accurate."

 

hardly.

 

a typical low level mage has a very small spell repertoire. the higher level mage is not limited to sleep or magic missile as his only combat spells. he might have mind dominating spells or fireballs or lightning bolts or poison cloud type stuff... and he will have an opportunity to use those spells in the appropriate situations.

 

that low level mage's party mates is equally limited in their chosen classes. a fighter in d&d may be able to use all martial weapons at level 1, but he can only use basic vanilla attacks with each o' those weapons.... no bull rushes or whirlwind attacks or rapid shots. heck, even if your 1st level fighter does have power attack chances is he ain't gonna use it much, 'cause his bab sucks so bad.

 

the fact that your enemies get tougher as your character levels is a pointless observation. 'course the enemies get tougher... they has to get tougher if game is gonna continue to be challenging and fun. however, leveling for the pc inevitably results in more options for the pc (both in terms of character development and viable tactics) for the character... and more options (if balanced,) is always a good thing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[sicarius]

"Yes, your character's capabilities increase - at the same level that your opponent's capabilites do. The oft-cited analogy of a treadmill is accurate."

 

hardly.

 

a typical low level mage has a very small spell repertoire.  the higher level mage is not limited to sleep or magic missile as his only combat spells.  he might have mind dominating spells or fireballs or lightning bolts or poison cloud type stuff... and he will have an opportunity to use those spells in the appropriate situations.

 

Ah. So levelling allows you to have a more interesting character, one that feels more like the protagonists of the Tolkein-lite fantasies these games almost always emulate.

 

So, why not start with interesting characters, and have the rest of the game consist of imaginative and challenging encounters, both social and combative, as well as a rewarding and suitably complex storyline?

[Gromnir]

folks like to drag tolkien into these discussions, and we not know why. how many spells did gandalf ever cast in lotr? the protagonists get very little description in lotr.

 

regardless, can you create a rpg system with no levels at all? sure you can. the rpg purists often turn up their noses at such tawdry and mundane things like leveling. is all

[sicarius]

folks like to drag tolkien into these discussions, and we not know why.  how many spells did gandalf ever cast in lotr?  the protagonists get very little description in lotr.

 

Look again. I never mentioned Tolkein - I mentioned the faux-Tolkein protruded product that passes for 'fantasy' nowadays. It's this that most games try to emulate.

 

regardless, can you create a rpg system with no levels at all?  sure you can.  the rpg purists often turn up their noses at such tawdry and mundane things like leveling.  is all

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'm not too sure about dialoguet being a favorite aspect of those that liked it... It was very simple and not too gripping. Nothing like Torment, at least. Anyway, I'm not keen on Fallout's dialogue, but do like it's dialogue tree system and use of dialogue options as viable solutions for problem handling instead of ye olde shoot everything to smithereens.