An RPG with no skill levels
by Max Robinson · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 08/14/2002 (10:54 pm) · 14 replies
I'm really tired of RPGs now... When I used to play everquest, I played games on my other computer while I played EQ not only because I could, but I wanted to. The game didnt have enough entertainment for a human being to enjoy it for the game itself. Many CRPGs can be described by as being repetitive, pointless, boring, slow, unrealistic, and generally not amazingly exciting. This is exaggerated with MMORPGs since the time scale cant be compressed the same way it can be with single player games, resulting in a lot more boredom and pain. Why not end it all now?
------
First I'd like to get something straight about computers vs pen and paper:
On the most fundamental level, all CRPGS have been based in some part on D&D. What medium is D&D? Its a pen and paper RPG. This means it's nearly impossible to simulate small details, and most importantly it's nearly impossible for the player to express his/her actual skill. It's a very low level of actual simulation.
What are 3-d games capable of now? Simulating real space (as in objects take up space, collide with eachother, block your view), depticting massive and detailed worlds, pretty intelligent AI, good real-time graphics, etc. Basically, a high level of simulation.
Basically, computers are superior to pen and paper if you want to deliver the experience of being in a complete, realistic world. It would require less abstraction.
------------
Second: Now let's talk about RPG basics. First, an RPG means a role-playing game. Meaning (in my opinion, of course) you try to act as a different person who exists in a different world. It DOESN'T mean you have to kill monsters to get levels. It just means you have a character you develop. Developing a character as in the book/movie/storyline sense, not the raising levels sense. Second, skill levels. Skill levels are used in D&D because the DM and other players can't measure how good a player is at picking locks, in fact, he probably knows nothing about picking locks. Or killing things. And he can't learn how to pick locks or kill goblins by rolling dice and adding numbers. So instead, we came up with this concept of skill levels. It's great (and necessary) for an abstract situation like pen and paper. The DM cannot summon the items the player is picking up, then summon a demon for him/her to kill. However, all of this abstraction is not necessary with computers. Like I stated earlier, the simulation power of computers can make up for the fact that you cannot do any of these things. The computer can simulate you doing all of these things, so why not force the player to learn how to do the things and do them?
--------
Third: Goals. Leveling gives you a bad goal: to get the highest attainable level in the entire game. Why? Because you become amazingly powerful, and then you can use that power to get the best items and be generally badass. Now lets look at real life. What is the point of real life? It's so elusive, there is no universally accepted anser. It's not trying to max out some numbers, that's for sure. Personally, I think we all secretly just want to enjoy our stay. So if this alternate world is supposed to be realistic, the end goal should be the same as real life. Basically, enjoy your time.
An RPG should let the player do whatever the hell they want in a world that is cooler than the one they live in as a character who is cooler and more interesting than they actually are. That would be ideal. Open-ended, exciting, realistic.
Notes: I don't hate D&D. I just don't think modern computer games should copy it so much, not just because it gets old but because they are beyond it now. Also I don't think the problem is that everyone uses Tolkein's stuff as a base. Tolkien made a very good world, which is really cool, and is very worthy of being the backstory for hundreds of games.
Another note: I'm very interested in making this game.
------
First I'd like to get something straight about computers vs pen and paper:
On the most fundamental level, all CRPGS have been based in some part on D&D. What medium is D&D? Its a pen and paper RPG. This means it's nearly impossible to simulate small details, and most importantly it's nearly impossible for the player to express his/her actual skill. It's a very low level of actual simulation.
What are 3-d games capable of now? Simulating real space (as in objects take up space, collide with eachother, block your view), depticting massive and detailed worlds, pretty intelligent AI, good real-time graphics, etc. Basically, a high level of simulation.
Basically, computers are superior to pen and paper if you want to deliver the experience of being in a complete, realistic world. It would require less abstraction.
------------
Second: Now let's talk about RPG basics. First, an RPG means a role-playing game. Meaning (in my opinion, of course) you try to act as a different person who exists in a different world. It DOESN'T mean you have to kill monsters to get levels. It just means you have a character you develop. Developing a character as in the book/movie/storyline sense, not the raising levels sense. Second, skill levels. Skill levels are used in D&D because the DM and other players can't measure how good a player is at picking locks, in fact, he probably knows nothing about picking locks. Or killing things. And he can't learn how to pick locks or kill goblins by rolling dice and adding numbers. So instead, we came up with this concept of skill levels. It's great (and necessary) for an abstract situation like pen and paper. The DM cannot summon the items the player is picking up, then summon a demon for him/her to kill. However, all of this abstraction is not necessary with computers. Like I stated earlier, the simulation power of computers can make up for the fact that you cannot do any of these things. The computer can simulate you doing all of these things, so why not force the player to learn how to do the things and do them?
--------
Third: Goals. Leveling gives you a bad goal: to get the highest attainable level in the entire game. Why? Because you become amazingly powerful, and then you can use that power to get the best items and be generally badass. Now lets look at real life. What is the point of real life? It's so elusive, there is no universally accepted anser. It's not trying to max out some numbers, that's for sure. Personally, I think we all secretly just want to enjoy our stay. So if this alternate world is supposed to be realistic, the end goal should be the same as real life. Basically, enjoy your time.
An RPG should let the player do whatever the hell they want in a world that is cooler than the one they live in as a character who is cooler and more interesting than they actually are. That would be ideal. Open-ended, exciting, realistic.
Notes: I don't hate D&D. I just don't think modern computer games should copy it so much, not just because it gets old but because they are beyond it now. Also I don't think the problem is that everyone uses Tolkein's stuff as a base. Tolkien made a very good world, which is really cool, and is very worthy of being the backstory for hundreds of games.
Another note: I'm very interested in making this game.
#2
However, I think your idea is a good one. I just think there are a few things that you are ignoring. People play RPG's to get away from their own lives. They don't want a game that will simulate their life, they want to experience a life that is more entertaining (which is what your getting at). What a lot of RPG's do is give the player a way to become powerful. More powerful then anyone else in that world. It's a very compleling notion. They almost always do this by giving the player the option of looking at their stats. Looking at the stats will show a player that they are progressing and give them a reward for fighting monsters. With out the reward fighting monsters would just seem pointless to all players and the game would get old really fast.
Leveling up isn't necessarily a bad thing because it provides a little bit more replayability. I'm personally a fan of stats and when I play a game, first and formost I play to finish it. Along the way though I realize that my characters are going to have to be fairly strong in order to beat the guys I need to beat, so I level up. But if the game has poor gameplay and a bad story stats aren't going to keep me playing. On the flip side a game with good gameplay and a moderate story but no stats will probably not even get rented by me.
What the real question becomes is how to make a reward system that is inviting and encouraging to the player. Any ideas on what you are going to replace stats with?
What both of you seem to be talking about Adventure games. Traditionally they are more story based then RPG's and have no real base on stats what so ever. Once Tomb Raider came along they became for the most part jump puzzle games. Recently however there have been a couple of games, like MGS2, that have gone 'back to the roots' and relied on a little bit of storytelling.
I think SquareSoft has done a really good job with Final Fantasy, keeping the story compelling and having a cool stats system.
I have a lot more I could add to this but I'll end it here...it's getting a little long.
Alc
08/15/2002 (9:49 am)
I think the whole point of D&D was to get away from technology. It's appealling for the same reason you would read a book. Because you are creating the world in your mind. It doesn't matter if the trees are green in your world, or even if the person next to you see's yellow trees. The point of it is you can all interact in a different world that the DM guides you through. I think D&D is fun because I get to use my imagination which has more creative capacity then a computer ever will. So in that sense computers have a very long way to go.However, I think your idea is a good one. I just think there are a few things that you are ignoring. People play RPG's to get away from their own lives. They don't want a game that will simulate their life, they want to experience a life that is more entertaining (which is what your getting at). What a lot of RPG's do is give the player a way to become powerful. More powerful then anyone else in that world. It's a very compleling notion. They almost always do this by giving the player the option of looking at their stats. Looking at the stats will show a player that they are progressing and give them a reward for fighting monsters. With out the reward fighting monsters would just seem pointless to all players and the game would get old really fast.
Leveling up isn't necessarily a bad thing because it provides a little bit more replayability. I'm personally a fan of stats and when I play a game, first and formost I play to finish it. Along the way though I realize that my characters are going to have to be fairly strong in order to beat the guys I need to beat, so I level up. But if the game has poor gameplay and a bad story stats aren't going to keep me playing. On the flip side a game with good gameplay and a moderate story but no stats will probably not even get rented by me.
What the real question becomes is how to make a reward system that is inviting and encouraging to the player. Any ideas on what you are going to replace stats with?
What both of you seem to be talking about Adventure games. Traditionally they are more story based then RPG's and have no real base on stats what so ever. Once Tomb Raider came along they became for the most part jump puzzle games. Recently however there have been a couple of games, like MGS2, that have gone 'back to the roots' and relied on a little bit of storytelling.
I think SquareSoft has done a really good job with Final Fantasy, keeping the story compelling and having a cool stats system.
I have a lot more I could add to this but I'll end it here...it's getting a little long.
Alc
#3
About realism: Realism can be applied to different areas. For instance, the graphics and physics can be life-like, or close, while the gameplay, backstory, weapons, etc, are completely unrealistic. When I said realistic, I didn't mean stuff like travel times, capabilties of players, all the boring things, I meant more like graphics, physics, and maybe how some things work.
About the reward of the stats: I agree that opening up your character info and seeing your high numbers is very rewarding, and I didn't really think a game like this would be a replacement for those types of games, which can be very satisfying to play in the long run. However, I also find it very satisfying to play an FPS game and become one of the top players on the server. I feel less like I just sat back for the show, and more like I actually, personally, am better than I was. I wonder if an RPG could do that?
I wasn't really thinking adventure games because they are usually a bit more simplistic and less open ended, even if they have more action content. I guess what I'm thinking of us an action/rpg with more tactics and more control than a game like Diablo.
I'm basically talking about an RPG where most of the fighting is done through a more player-active system in which the player has to be involved in the most basic parts like moving, attacking, aiming. It's not actually that big of a leap. At lesat the way I was thinking of it, there would still be inventory (ie you get better items) and some character (stats like stamina and strength make sense as a number) progression. Does the idea seem ok?
08/15/2002 (6:24 pm)
I agree that D&D is not meant to be the same way as a movie/game, and I think it's a little wierd how skill levels have come along with it over to computers.About realism: Realism can be applied to different areas. For instance, the graphics and physics can be life-like, or close, while the gameplay, backstory, weapons, etc, are completely unrealistic. When I said realistic, I didn't mean stuff like travel times, capabilties of players, all the boring things, I meant more like graphics, physics, and maybe how some things work.
About the reward of the stats: I agree that opening up your character info and seeing your high numbers is very rewarding, and I didn't really think a game like this would be a replacement for those types of games, which can be very satisfying to play in the long run. However, I also find it very satisfying to play an FPS game and become one of the top players on the server. I feel less like I just sat back for the show, and more like I actually, personally, am better than I was. I wonder if an RPG could do that?
I wasn't really thinking adventure games because they are usually a bit more simplistic and less open ended, even if they have more action content. I guess what I'm thinking of us an action/rpg with more tactics and more control than a game like Diablo.
I'm basically talking about an RPG where most of the fighting is done through a more player-active system in which the player has to be involved in the most basic parts like moving, attacking, aiming. It's not actually that big of a leap. At lesat the way I was thinking of it, there would still be inventory (ie you get better items) and some character (stats like stamina and strength make sense as a number) progression. Does the idea seem ok?
#4
Thus, it gets hard to make a good rpg game because the storyline/role will usually always be the same. But, I think that morrowind becomes quite close to this.
Anyways thats my opinion ... plus I need some good ideas considering I am making a rpg/fps hybrid.
08/15/2002 (7:42 pm)
As you have mentioned, making an actual rpg game is almot kinda hard ... because then people's only goal is to become the most powerful character in the game. However, if you are going to make one, go for something like morrowind. It's an rpg where you basically create your OWN storyline etc. You simply pick a character .. and your on your own on a HUGE island ... increasing in skill etc. But then again ... the human mind, while playind D&D can create anything etc, also while having a dm allowably able to create anything at any moment..Thus, it gets hard to make a good rpg game because the storyline/role will usually always be the same. But, I think that morrowind becomes quite close to this.
Anyways thats my opinion ... plus I need some good ideas considering I am making a rpg/fps hybrid.
#5
Really though, you should look at games like Zelda and such for consoles. They're nice sources of information from the people that've already done them.
08/15/2002 (8:24 pm)
They've already done that... they're called 3rd person action games. :D Really though, you should look at games like Zelda and such for consoles. They're nice sources of information from the people that've already done them.
#6
08/15/2002 (9:04 pm)
right I know lol ... but i'm trying to imply a story line as well ... somehow ... but its hard cause since it's an online game .... its kinda hard to imply a storyline. So my basic idea was for everyone to kinda start their own "story". Yet keep it online as as exciting as possible :/. Does anyone have any good ideas on how to make this work?
#7
Say, I talk to shopkeeper A, who tells me about quest A. I beat quest A, and unlock access to area 1. On the other hand, I could talk to shopkeeper B, who tells me about quest B. I beat quest B, which unlocks area 2. Either way, you won't be able to get to one area or the other. Eventually, you'll have made so many decisions after entering through so many new areas that your story will be completely different from everyone else's.
However, it would take quite a bit of time to link together ALL of them and code every possible selection, but it would make it a completely new experience every time. Of course, near the end, the selections you make will end up leading you back to everyone else's storyline, giving you all the same ending. Think of it as a road from A to Z, with a bunch of letters in between.
08/15/2002 (9:23 pm)
Well, if this is going to be demi-MMORPG, then simply set up variating scenerios for the player to encounter.Say, I talk to shopkeeper A, who tells me about quest A. I beat quest A, and unlock access to area 1. On the other hand, I could talk to shopkeeper B, who tells me about quest B. I beat quest B, which unlocks area 2. Either way, you won't be able to get to one area or the other. Eventually, you'll have made so many decisions after entering through so many new areas that your story will be completely different from everyone else's.
However, it would take quite a bit of time to link together ALL of them and code every possible selection, but it would make it a completely new experience every time. Of course, near the end, the selections you make will end up leading you back to everyone else's storyline, giving you all the same ending. Think of it as a road from A to Z, with a bunch of letters in between.
#8
Now comes the question of being multiplayer .... should I make it like in neverwinter nights that you gather up a team and then join a server .... but then who hosts the server etc ...
Making games requires so much planning before you can start getting your hands dirty lol.
BTW, coding is NOT a problem for me .. I did a complete gui interface, and a page long code in about 5 hours ... But then again ill be in school soon and greatly decrease how much I can work on the game :(
08/15/2002 (10:14 pm)
I hate to keep referring to morrowind cause like I said it's one of the coolest rpgs and most well made one's i've ever played, but what they did is that someone says they need something or rather, or you can even ask for the latest rumors and that basically opens up something for you to do.Now comes the question of being multiplayer .... should I make it like in neverwinter nights that you gather up a team and then join a server .... but then who hosts the server etc ...
Making games requires so much planning before you can start getting your hands dirty lol.
BTW, coding is NOT a problem for me .. I did a complete gui interface, and a page long code in about 5 hours ... But then again ill be in school soon and greatly decrease how much I can work on the game :(
#9
I also played zelda 64, and link to the past for snes, liked them both. I thought zelda 64 had a nice combat system but it was under-used. There weren't enough really big fights, imo. But it or something like JK2 or Rune would have similar melee systems to what I was thinking of, niether of them had that view-lock feature though. I'm not sure if thats good or bad yet.
Also, MMORPG storylines... hmm. EQ's identical quests for 1000 people is just lame. I think the problem games like EQ have had with player-created story lines is that the players dont have the necessary things to create them accidentaly. For instance: you raid the tomb of an old warrior/mage and steal thier stuff, right? That wont work as player-created, because characters dont die.
[ A little idea: Imagine how annoying it would be if your character got old and died? I'm not sure though, if all you lost was maybe your equipment (unless your new character "inherited" your equipment) and some stats that aren't 100% of your identity, it might not be too heartbreaking. You would still be as good a player as you were. ]
Also wars are a cool thing, but most mmorpgs dont have much PvP and dont support wars. DAoC is close, but the sides were picked by the developers, not the players. Theoretically Shadowbane will have a lot of player-created story. I wonder if Shadowbane will work out the way the developers hope?
Now that you mention morrowind, It makes me want to do a SP rpg. MMORPG is just too many adventurers! If you have so many treasure hunters, you wont have the treasure to deal out. Maybe a game like NWN/Diablo where its just a few people in a non-persistent world? Or perhaps you could make it so you had a world for you and like 10-20 friends or so max and any number of you could get on?
Interesting ideas....
08/16/2002 (8:15 pm)
It's funny to see games suggested. I've been playing morrowind a lot for the last 2-3 weeks, I love it. I almost want to go and edit it a little, but I'm not sure if I could stop. It (and maybe the lotr movie) has inspired me to start thinking of this idea. I also played zelda 64, and link to the past for snes, liked them both. I thought zelda 64 had a nice combat system but it was under-used. There weren't enough really big fights, imo. But it or something like JK2 or Rune would have similar melee systems to what I was thinking of, niether of them had that view-lock feature though. I'm not sure if thats good or bad yet.
Also, MMORPG storylines... hmm. EQ's identical quests for 1000 people is just lame. I think the problem games like EQ have had with player-created story lines is that the players dont have the necessary things to create them accidentaly. For instance: you raid the tomb of an old warrior/mage and steal thier stuff, right? That wont work as player-created, because characters dont die.
[ A little idea: Imagine how annoying it would be if your character got old and died? I'm not sure though, if all you lost was maybe your equipment (unless your new character "inherited" your equipment) and some stats that aren't 100% of your identity, it might not be too heartbreaking. You would still be as good a player as you were. ]
Also wars are a cool thing, but most mmorpgs dont have much PvP and dont support wars. DAoC is close, but the sides were picked by the developers, not the players. Theoretically Shadowbane will have a lot of player-created story. I wonder if Shadowbane will work out the way the developers hope?
Now that you mention morrowind, It makes me want to do a SP rpg. MMORPG is just too many adventurers! If you have so many treasure hunters, you wont have the treasure to deal out. Maybe a game like NWN/Diablo where its just a few people in a non-persistent world? Or perhaps you could make it so you had a world for you and like 10-20 friends or so max and any number of you could get on?
Interesting ideas....
#10
I keep trying to get everyone to use that for RW. I loved that combat system... Remember having to duel Dark Link? Fun and hard at the same time... That's the type of dueling and combat I've always wanted to see in a multi game. Being able to do backflips and forward slashes so easily while still maintaining a target... I loved every minute of it.
Too bad I hated the storyline. ("Go here, beat that." "Okay, done." "Okay, then go beat this.")
08/16/2002 (9:23 pm)
Quote:I also played zelda 64, and link to the past for snes, liked them both. I thought zelda 64 had a nice combat system but it was under-used. There weren't enough really big fights, imo. But it or something like JK2 or Rune would have similar melee systems to what I was thinking of, niether of them had that view-lock feature though. I'm not sure if thats good or bad yet.
I keep trying to get everyone to use that for RW. I loved that combat system... Remember having to duel Dark Link? Fun and hard at the same time... That's the type of dueling and combat I've always wanted to see in a multi game. Being able to do backflips and forward slashes so easily while still maintaining a target... I loved every minute of it.
Too bad I hated the storyline. ("Go here, beat that." "Okay, done." "Okay, then go beat this.")
#11
Well, I can make the target tracking!
08/17/2002 (2:11 pm)
Argh... I would do this right now if I had all the animations/models for this sort of thing, but I don't. What program even makes the .dsq files? I have some good ideas on how to do this with torque, but no animations makes it useless.Well, I can make the target tracking!
#12
3D Max and Milkshape are some examples of programs with exporters.
09/23/2002 (4:06 am)
In order to do animations you need a modeling program and an exporter in order to convert over to Torque standards.3D Max and Milkshape are some examples of programs with exporters.
#13
I find levels rather unneccessary when you have skills and classes. Not to mention I find classes miss applied.
Classes should be treated like professions, ie there a set of standards for skill sets/ proficiencies for said skills and for standarized sets of equipment.
If someone doesn't want to hedged into a class, thats fine. Some skills shouldn't be allowable to him starting off, but should have the maximum flexibility with the ones available.
IE, Mr. Noclass wants some fighting skills. Knives/spears and some Bows should be available to him, but the sword skill and horsemanship should be reserved for the dedicated fighting classes.
For non-fighting classes like merchants or craftsmen, it should work a little differently.
Merchants should be the commodity people concerned with selling and buying, plus moving products around. Of course this bunch needs to be limited in the amount of holdings they may hold.
This is where the taxman and guilds (Real ones not the player run variety.)come into play.
Merchants should be limited in areas traveled and to how much they may buy or sell by there guild rank.
To advance in the guild the merchant not only should be doing the usual buy/sell routine but look for new and different items to trade as well as such entertaining things as setting up trade routes and forts. (With the guilds approval to.)
Craftsmen should be more concerned about building there projects and aquiring materials. The aquiring materials could be done by the craftsmen himself or if he doesn't feel up to it, be allowed to post a notice and reward for the needed tasks through the use of a NPC broker.
Other interesting factors to consider.
If you run away from an obviously over-whelming opponent, you should recieve some sort of compensation. ( Perhaps a wisdom increase. :) )
Exploration should also be included for rewards. ( Mapping skill increases and perhaps Perception increases? )
Most of these have been explored in SP rpgs but very few are properly tried in actual MMRPG settings.
09/23/2002 (4:32 am)
Well here's a few musing on RPGs.I find levels rather unneccessary when you have skills and classes. Not to mention I find classes miss applied.
Classes should be treated like professions, ie there a set of standards for skill sets/ proficiencies for said skills and for standarized sets of equipment.
If someone doesn't want to hedged into a class, thats fine. Some skills shouldn't be allowable to him starting off, but should have the maximum flexibility with the ones available.
IE, Mr. Noclass wants some fighting skills. Knives/spears and some Bows should be available to him, but the sword skill and horsemanship should be reserved for the dedicated fighting classes.
For non-fighting classes like merchants or craftsmen, it should work a little differently.
Merchants should be the commodity people concerned with selling and buying, plus moving products around. Of course this bunch needs to be limited in the amount of holdings they may hold.
This is where the taxman and guilds (Real ones not the player run variety.)come into play.
Merchants should be limited in areas traveled and to how much they may buy or sell by there guild rank.
To advance in the guild the merchant not only should be doing the usual buy/sell routine but look for new and different items to trade as well as such entertaining things as setting up trade routes and forts. (With the guilds approval to.)
Craftsmen should be more concerned about building there projects and aquiring materials. The aquiring materials could be done by the craftsmen himself or if he doesn't feel up to it, be allowed to post a notice and reward for the needed tasks through the use of a NPC broker.
Other interesting factors to consider.
If you run away from an obviously over-whelming opponent, you should recieve some sort of compensation. ( Perhaps a wisdom increase. :) )
Exploration should also be included for rewards. ( Mapping skill increases and perhaps Perception increases? )
Most of these have been explored in SP rpgs but very few are properly tried in actual MMRPG settings.
#14
09/23/2002 (1:23 pm)
Another thing to explore with an RPG game would be game size. There are SP RPGs and there are MMORPGs, but not many games that I know of have player limits between 10 and 500+, which is a huge range IMO. I think it would probably play well if you had a 12-36 (something more like an FPS) person RPG game where the server hosts the characters (since client side characters in a multiplayer RPG are just lame). A lot like the Tribes RPG, if you ever played that. This player limit would be better suited for a more action oriented RPG, too, hehe. 
Torque 3D Owner Gareth Davies
Computer RPG's grew out of D&D and the simplistic stats based system, as because of their high level of abstraction they are easy to understand. Now this leads to two distinct systems, the simulation of the world (in the imagination in pen and paper / engine on the computer game). The higher 'rules' of the 'game' that interact with the world can be the same. Depending on what the game is trying to achieve these may of may not reflect reality. There has to be an easy way of defining what the player needs to know. Some (most of?) reality just isn't fun. How about adding a 6 week recuperation cycle rather than the oh so typical 'health potion'. Or making the player take years of effort to become even an amateur lockpick.
Of course a common problem is the 'labelling' of games. Basically an 'CRPG' is one that mirrors a similar pen and paper -esqe game. Take a game like MGS2, personally I consider that to be a RPG in how I would define the genre, and that doesn't have any of the 'leveling' monster bashing of what is usually attributed to them.
IMHO I agree, the focus should be on placing the player into a game rather on stats. But at the end of the day thats what people enjoy (geez look how successful everquest is!) and if I see STR/CON/DEX/WIS/INT/CHA in any game that isn't blatently D&D again i'll explode.
For those that do like everquest, may I suggest an optimised version www.progressquest.com