Implementing 'level-free' RPG?
by Rodney (OldRod) Burns · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 01/23/2003 (7:57 am) · 16 replies
I see a lot of threads, both here and at GameDev about people who are tired of the level grind in current RPG/MMORPGs. They always talk about a skill system as a good alternative, and that's my personal preference too, but I've run into snags trying to design it.
What I had planned for my game was to have the player pick their race, sex and appearance upon creating the character. From there out, it's openended. If they use a sword a lot, their skill in swordsmanship goes up. If they channel fire magic a lot, their skill in fire magic goes up, etc.
To keep things balanced, there needs to be a way for some skills to atrophy as you raise certain other skills. For instance, if you raised your skill in fire magic 1 point, your skill in swordsmanship would drop 1 point, as they are incompatible skills. Without some type of check like this, you'd have players maxing every skill and becoming godlike :)
I think I can implement that part of the system fairly well, it's mostly a matter of balancing out which skills are compatible/incompatible. But the loss of levels has me baffled. How do you allow the character to know they are advancing without 'leveling up'?
For instance, a level 1 wizard is no match for a dragon, but a level 50 wizard may be able to take him (wild example I know :). So how do you let the player know that he can or can't take a dragon without letting him know his level?
In current games, you target a mob and the game gives you some feedback as to your strength vs. the mob strength (EverQuest has a /con system - other games use similar things). These are always based on levels. In a game with no levels, how would you do this?
I suppose the game could keep track of the player's level internally, but that leads to an experience system, which leads to grinding again.
What I'm leaning towards is calculating a player stat based on a composite of all their skill numbers, plus factoring in things like Armor Class, etc. This stat would be kept internally (not displayed to the player), but every mob would also have a similar stat. Then when you see a mob, the game could compare the two stats and let you know through some visual clue whether or not you could take the mob out.
This allows the player to gain and grow stronger as he increases his skills, and take on bigger mobs for greater treasure. But, if he decided to change skills (from magic to swords, for example), his overall score would stay the same as some stats go up and others go down, so he could still fight the same strength mobs while changing skills, etc.
Does anyone have any other ideas of maybe a better way to do this?
What I had planned for my game was to have the player pick their race, sex and appearance upon creating the character. From there out, it's openended. If they use a sword a lot, their skill in swordsmanship goes up. If they channel fire magic a lot, their skill in fire magic goes up, etc.
To keep things balanced, there needs to be a way for some skills to atrophy as you raise certain other skills. For instance, if you raised your skill in fire magic 1 point, your skill in swordsmanship would drop 1 point, as they are incompatible skills. Without some type of check like this, you'd have players maxing every skill and becoming godlike :)
I think I can implement that part of the system fairly well, it's mostly a matter of balancing out which skills are compatible/incompatible. But the loss of levels has me baffled. How do you allow the character to know they are advancing without 'leveling up'?
For instance, a level 1 wizard is no match for a dragon, but a level 50 wizard may be able to take him (wild example I know :). So how do you let the player know that he can or can't take a dragon without letting him know his level?
In current games, you target a mob and the game gives you some feedback as to your strength vs. the mob strength (EverQuest has a /con system - other games use similar things). These are always based on levels. In a game with no levels, how would you do this?
I suppose the game could keep track of the player's level internally, but that leads to an experience system, which leads to grinding again.
What I'm leaning towards is calculating a player stat based on a composite of all their skill numbers, plus factoring in things like Armor Class, etc. This stat would be kept internally (not displayed to the player), but every mob would also have a similar stat. Then when you see a mob, the game could compare the two stats and let you know through some visual clue whether or not you could take the mob out.
This allows the player to gain and grow stronger as he increases his skills, and take on bigger mobs for greater treasure. But, if he decided to change skills (from magic to swords, for example), his overall score would stay the same as some stats go up and others go down, so he could still fight the same strength mobs while changing skills, etc.
Does anyone have any other ideas of maybe a better way to do this?
#2
With regards to the "take one, lose one" approach to the skills..I sort of like the idea, but dont make it one for one, but weighted. Like, going up in fire skill by 2 makes you lose 1 in swordsmanship. That way you can eventually get good at swords and awesome at spells, but never both, and never only one. This really lets the player have more choice as to what sort of character they want to have as opposed to a straight magician, or straight fighter.
01/23/2003 (8:35 am)
As far as the leveling system. I agree that levels aren't necessary. I will handle mine internally, but to counter the whole "experience issue"..I'm going to stress the player's attributes, and make those directly alterable to the player. But not by some screen where they attribute points to strength, intelligence, etc...but based on their actions in the game...Think Sims....the player can exercise the intelligence and strength of their character through different actions...With regards to the "take one, lose one" approach to the skills..I sort of like the idea, but dont make it one for one, but weighted. Like, going up in fire skill by 2 makes you lose 1 in swordsmanship. That way you can eventually get good at swords and awesome at spells, but never both, and never only one. This really lets the player have more choice as to what sort of character they want to have as opposed to a straight magician, or straight fighter.
#3
Basically every "level" cost what ever the NEXT plateu is, which means in the beginning.
LVL1 in magic, melee and ranged are all the same.
If the player gets LVL1 in melee then LVL1 in magic or ranged will cost what LVL2 in melee cost.
LVL2 in melee would then cost what LVL3 costs.
Thus if they get to be LVL10 in melee and then decide to try magic, LVL2 will cost what LVL11 costs!
IT basically works out that you CAN move everything up, you will never be "godlike" in anything your character
will be medicore at best in everything.
If you concentrate on only one thing you will get good at it quickly and be godlike near the end
but for all practical purposes the other skills will never be able to brought up past a few levels.
01/23/2003 (8:53 am)
Actually the Dungeon Siege model is probably the most easily understood. There is a really good article on how they handle this in a Game Developer magazine.Basically every "level" cost what ever the NEXT plateu is, which means in the beginning.
LVL1 in magic, melee and ranged are all the same.
If the player gets LVL1 in melee then LVL1 in magic or ranged will cost what LVL2 in melee cost.
LVL2 in melee would then cost what LVL3 costs.
Thus if they get to be LVL10 in melee and then decide to try magic, LVL2 will cost what LVL11 costs!
IT basically works out that you CAN move everything up, you will never be "godlike" in anything your character
will be medicore at best in everything.
If you concentrate on only one thing you will get good at it quickly and be godlike near the end
but for all practical purposes the other skills will never be able to brought up past a few levels.
#4
One thing I want is the ability for a player to change skills if he wants. Let's say he plays a wizard-type character for a while, then decides he wants to switch to swords. He should be able to retrain without starting over.
The Dungeon Siege method would allow this but it would be pretty costly to earn the new skill. Asheron's Call 2 allows you to 'untrain' skills, perhaps something like that could be worked into a no-level, no-class skill system as a way to learn the new skill more quickly?
01/23/2003 (9:03 am)
That Dungeon Siege article sounds interesting - is it available online?One thing I want is the ability for a player to change skills if he wants. Let's say he plays a wizard-type character for a while, then decides he wants to switch to swords. He should be able to retrain without starting over.
The Dungeon Siege method would allow this but it would be pretty costly to earn the new skill. Asheron's Call 2 allows you to 'untrain' skills, perhaps something like that could be worked into a no-level, no-class skill system as a way to learn the new skill more quickly?
#5
01/23/2003 (9:04 am)
Interesting approach. I kind of like that. This gives the player the freedom to become a "Jack of all Trades" or an "Ace of one". But it sort of forces the player to make this decision early on. If the player changes his mind in mid or late game..he's sort of screwed.
#6
Thus, you can still allow players to raise their skills through use and also have a good metric to judge one's ability.
Course this means you could have a lvl 40 boot maker and a lvl 40 sword master
01/23/2003 (10:45 am)
Morrowind also has an interesting hybred of skills and levels. In Morrowind, you advance a level everytime you advance any combination of your skills X times. Thus, you can still allow players to raise their skills through use and also have a good metric to judge one's ability.
Course this means you could have a lvl 40 boot maker and a lvl 40 sword master
#7
01/23/2003 (11:44 am)
@Rodney: www.gamasutra.com should have it, free reg. required (and well worth it, in my opinion) 
#8
Now, I think if they removed the experience levels that you had to level through, and just gave skill points instead(like AC2 does with xp you can spend on skills), it would have been much better. Also, they could use that numeric attack power rating to compare to others for the color-coded rankings.
Myself, I'm using the skill point system with increasing costs and weighted points per profession(possibly splitting the points into combat, magic, and trade points even, but I'm not decided on that). Untraining in AC2 is an okay feature, I really don't have much opinion for it either way even though I've used it(it does work pretty good for that game though). I dunno about making the next level of something else cost as much as learning a much higher level of a given skill, that seems a bit heavy handed to me.
01/23/2003 (12:20 pm)
Myself, I like a modification of the Anarchy Online model(which I'm using in a project). Basically, AO allowed you to spend points on skills and weighted the cost of those skills depending on your profession. The cost also increased for each level of the skill. For gauging attacking power, there was a number used, though I don't believe that they used it for comparison against a monster.Now, I think if they removed the experience levels that you had to level through, and just gave skill points instead(like AC2 does with xp you can spend on skills), it would have been much better. Also, they could use that numeric attack power rating to compare to others for the color-coded rankings.
Myself, I'm using the skill point system with increasing costs and weighted points per profession(possibly splitting the points into combat, magic, and trade points even, but I'm not decided on that). Untraining in AC2 is an okay feature, I really don't have much opinion for it either way even though I've used it(it does work pretty good for that game though). I dunno about making the next level of something else cost as much as learning a much higher level of a given skill, that seems a bit heavy handed to me.
#9
It would avoid levels entirely, and the player would not need to see any actual values for his/her attributes/skills - you could even have it so players dont see their attributes at all, so it isnt blatantly obvious what a player should train at most to defeat the dragon, but the odds report would stop the player from taking on the dragon too early and getting killed.
It could also be used to compare players with other players, giving a player ranking/hierarchy system without using levels at all.
01/23/2003 (1:45 pm)
With re to the game telling you whether you are of such a level to defeat a dragon or not, you could work out the probability of the player defeating the dragon based on the player's skills and attributes and the dragon's skills and attributes, and then report an approximation of this value back to the player, say as odds or something.It would avoid levels entirely, and the player would not need to see any actual values for his/her attributes/skills - you could even have it so players dont see their attributes at all, so it isnt blatantly obvious what a player should train at most to defeat the dragon, but the odds report would stop the player from taking on the dragon too early and getting killed.
It could also be used to compare players with other players, giving a player ranking/hierarchy system without using levels at all.
#10
I think an interesting way to do skills would be to, on character creation, put points into different levels of affinity for different skills. As in, change the rate at which the character will gain skill with specific areas. Thus, your character would still be forced into a limited role, but it would allow the player to put some creativity into it. Dungeon Siege's system was oversimplified, and was boring. 3 skills is not enough. The game didn't have enough depth. Another wierd idea I had about alternative systems would be to make the game more action oriented, with a lot more player control, and instead of gaining a point in a skill and that's that, allowing the player to shift thier skill focus in real time. So in the middle of a battle, the player could shift thier skill around to focus on different things they need, along with having to actually control the character(s) a bit more than normal. Of course, you couldn't just let them throw the skill where it is most convenient all the time, as that'd be too easy. But, with a lot of limitations (time) , it seems like it'd be interesting, at least to me.
And you can always break the monotony a lot by making it so you don't gain skill/exp JUST by killing things. If are were multiple ways to raise the same skill, it seems like it'd let the player pick what they like more, and thus, enjoy the game more.
01/23/2003 (1:56 pm)
I am not sure why people do not want characters to be capable of being multi-talented, or at least unique in thier capability set.I think an interesting way to do skills would be to, on character creation, put points into different levels of affinity for different skills. As in, change the rate at which the character will gain skill with specific areas. Thus, your character would still be forced into a limited role, but it would allow the player to put some creativity into it. Dungeon Siege's system was oversimplified, and was boring. 3 skills is not enough. The game didn't have enough depth. Another wierd idea I had about alternative systems would be to make the game more action oriented, with a lot more player control, and instead of gaining a point in a skill and that's that, allowing the player to shift thier skill focus in real time. So in the middle of a battle, the player could shift thier skill around to focus on different things they need, along with having to actually control the character(s) a bit more than normal. Of course, you couldn't just let them throw the skill where it is most convenient all the time, as that'd be too easy. But, with a lot of limitations (time) , it seems like it'd be interesting, at least to me.
And you can always break the monotony a lot by making it so you don't gain skill/exp JUST by killing things. If are were multiple ways to raise the same skill, it seems like it'd let the player pick what they like more, and thus, enjoy the game more.
#11
01/23/2003 (1:57 pm)
I have a pretty sweet system worked out and it seems to eliminate the problem. However, in my game, the player doesn't choose his class by his skills necessarily. The player will end up with a complete skill list if he has maxed out his character. So I've been able to avoid some of the issues associated with character classes and skill classes.
#12
Aren't you worried if the player maxes out every skill that it'll make him too powerful for the game content? Or, conversely, you have to design game content for him, meaning everyone will feel they have to max every skill to be able to play that content, etc.?
I'm trying to avoid that if I can :)
I registered at Gamasutra, but can't locate the article mentioned above. Searches only turn up a couple of articles on Dungeon Siege, and none of them seem to be discussing this topic. I tried going to Game Developer Magazine's site, but it seems to be down :(
01/23/2003 (2:02 pm)
Jeremy:Aren't you worried if the player maxes out every skill that it'll make him too powerful for the game content? Or, conversely, you have to design game content for him, meaning everyone will feel they have to max every skill to be able to play that content, etc.?
I'm trying to avoid that if I can :)
I registered at Gamasutra, but can't locate the article mentioned above. Searches only turn up a couple of articles on Dungeon Siege, and none of them seem to be discussing this topic. I tried going to Game Developer Magazine's site, but it seems to be down :(
#13
Your problem is unique in that two skills may be polar opposites of eachother whereas with my game, all the skills will compliment eachother very nicely. So in your game, it will take away gameplay if the character gets good at everything, in mine, it will make the gameplay much better if he does.
01/23/2003 (2:16 pm)
My game is different from traditional RPGs, so that is why I don't have the same problems as you do in trying to devise a leveling system. First off, mine takes place in modern times, so there is no magic or anything. All skills are based on the player's ability to do things like fire a weapon, basic movement, acrobatic techniques and other things. The player's weapon handling will improve over time. And as his skills get better, % hit modifiers and success modifiers will become smaller and eventually disappear to give the player a feeling that his character is really getting better at basic things. In the end, the player will want a character that can do everything to make the game more fun and playable, but good design warranting...the game will still be playable and enjoyable without it. But none of the skills the player will win or learn will make his character too powerful by any means. They will actually just add more controls and abilities at the player's disposal.Your problem is unique in that two skills may be polar opposites of eachother whereas with my game, all the skills will compliment eachother very nicely. So in your game, it will take away gameplay if the character gets good at everything, in mine, it will make the gameplay much better if he does.
#14
As for skills themselves, they will branch out into more individualized techniques - Mages will be able to go deep into focused arts, Fighters will learn their own fighting style, Archers will be able to specialize their ranges and targets, and specialized skills like Blacksmiths will be able to focus on being a Toolsmith if they so wish.
Fighting is also based more on role-play then just jumping in and hacking away, with monsters being as different as you and me, making learning all the different ways a creature may be important.
Yes the points and stats will be available to evaluate, but the game is more story based and relies more on details than numbers.
I think this is the next step in RPGs, but, that's just my opinion.
01/23/2003 (2:35 pm)
In the MMORPG I've designed, players will be more concentrated on role-playing their characters rather than advancing levels, as this will lead to the best experience possible.As for skills themselves, they will branch out into more individualized techniques - Mages will be able to go deep into focused arts, Fighters will learn their own fighting style, Archers will be able to specialize their ranges and targets, and specialized skills like Blacksmiths will be able to focus on being a Toolsmith if they so wish.
Fighting is also based more on role-play then just jumping in and hacking away, with monsters being as different as you and me, making learning all the different ways a creature may be important.
Yes the points and stats will be available to evaluate, but the game is more story based and relies more on details than numbers.
I think this is the next step in RPGs, but, that's just my opinion.
#15
If immersion is the focus, of course. And with a true role playing game, I think immersion is priority #1.
01/23/2003 (5:19 pm)
I think moving away from numbers can only do good...If immersion is the focus, of course. And with a true role playing game, I think immersion is priority #1.
#16
They have expanded this into a system called Fuzion that is genre inspecific.
There were basic stats but most things never went over 10. Most players ended up with very similar characters numerically.
It was a relativly good system for humans to manage. But the computer CAN manage crap loads of data, that is what it is better than us by orders of maganatiude. I mean the original table top Advanced Squad Leader was just BEGGING for a translation to a computer game, and guess what they f**ked it up by simplifing the rules rather than hiding the tables, they just thru them out.
The devil is in the details, and not to sound like a gronard, but I like detail in my games. It makes it more immersive.
01/23/2003 (6:48 pm)
Actually I used to play a system by R. Talsorian called Cyberpunk which had very few "numbers", they did not really have hit points per say, it made the game more in the hands the gamemaster than the players, since the game master could allow players a break here and there, and not get arguments or have it seemed contrived.They have expanded this into a system called Fuzion that is genre inspecific.
There were basic stats but most things never went over 10. Most players ended up with very similar characters numerically.
It was a relativly good system for humans to manage. But the computer CAN manage crap loads of data, that is what it is better than us by orders of maganatiude. I mean the original table top Advanced Squad Leader was just BEGGING for a translation to a computer game, and guess what they f**ked it up by simplifing the rules rather than hiding the tables, they just thru them out.
The devil is in the details, and not to sound like a gronard, but I like detail in my games. It makes it more immersive.
Associate David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake
For example, let's say the player likes to swing a sword a lot because they have a Sword of Imp Dicing or something. That skill goes up. Say they also learn Fire Lv1 and start using it AND their sword to dice imps and singe their eyebrows. Because of the continued use, their stats shouldn't falter. Because they're not using each as often (because they're switching back and forth), they should raise slower.
Now, say they get the Super Axe of Nasty Slaying and start using that instead of the sword. The sword should go down with disuse just like the ax is rising. And if they start switching through all their weapons to keep trying to "stay on top of things", the time it takes to raise any one will be shared among them all, which as their skills get progressively higher (must not say level), it becomes MUCH, MUCH slower to raise them if they keep jostling around. To actually do anything other than going through the monotony similar to raising levels, only in this case, raising skill...er, levels...is much more annoying because of the amount of different things they have to do. Sure, they could do it, but then they wouldn't be out actually having any fun with the game.
Just throwing ideas out there...