The Need for Experience and Levels

[xdan]

I'd like to discuss whether a leveling up mechanic is necessary at all. First of all: what purpose(s) does this mechanic serve?

-Provide a slow sense of progression and empowerment to the player.
-Make every victory feel a tiny bit relevant.
-Slowly unlock the different mechanics in the game, as having them all unlocked from the start may very possibly overwhelm the player. This is the most important use in my opinion.

However, in my projects, I've come to a point where all of these issues have been solved through other means. So, I am left thinking: should I drop the mechanic entirely?

I'm really eager to hear what you think about this topic. Feel free to write as many paragraphs as you'd like.

 

[Sauteed_Onion]

It's something I've been kind of wrestling with myself, but.. I think I'll keep the levels in there, but they are SOLELY for allowing access to special moves and possibly a type of "skill check" on whether someone is skilled enough in a particular profession to get the next mission etc. Hopefully nothing to do with stats. Those will be raised in other ways.

 

[bgillisp]

I've played games that didn't have levels, and honestly it just made me run from every fight I could as there was now little to no reason to do battles. Some tried to fix it with you get G from battles instead, but after a while money didn't matter so I just ran from that too.

If you were to go this route you may have to do what FFXIII-3 did and have a limited number of each encounters in the game, so if they player clears them all out, they can just move around at will with no more battles.

 

[xdan]

You see, the battles are the whole point of my game. There isn't even a plot, the battles are literally all the content.

So, I'd say, if you tried to avoid battles... You'd be avoiding the whole game. At that point, you may as well want to play something else.

I can see the case of this being a problem with other "less thoughtful" games. Games where the gameplay is just a filler between story bits. But that sounds more like a problem with the very root and core concept of the game.

I think if your gameplay isn't engaging without leveling up, you might be doing something wrong. Like, the only joy your game provides comes from the illusion of empowerment that leveling up creates. Everything leading up to that point doesn't even matter.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

If your player progresses and powers up thru other means, then by all means remove the levelling mechanic..

Take care though in your "near perfect strategies" goal as that might be troublesome to a lot of players. Its better to leave some space for improvisation, else it will just be "lets find a walkthru for this" kind of battle or "lets just quit" kind of game.

 

[bgillisp]

The problem is one person's my game makes you think is another this developer has one way to solve it and I can't %@$^ find it. So you have to be really careful with that. And since few indie games have walkthroughs if you make too many that have no room for improvising you will turn off your player base and never get them back.

Now if your game is something like clear these battles and that is it, no random fights, then it can work. I was cautioning to be careful if you have random battles, because then what you just said will be false as the RNG will decide otherwise for some players. But there still has to be a reason for the battles of some sort, else why play the game? Most players don't play RPG's just to do combat.

Edit: Also they have found via studies there is a huge psychological boost players get when they level up, which makes them want to keep on going. This is why many MMO's make getting the first few levels easy, so you can see visibly that you are getting more powerful, and then want to keep getting more powerful from there.

 

[Rhaeami]

I've used level-less systems in both of my games so far. In the first, Pale Echoes, it was a set-encounter system where every enemy was functionally a boss in that they blocked the path and were fought exactly one time each.

In my latest title, random encounters are back in play, and I quickly came to realize that you need to give the player some kind of reward for fighting non-essential opponents. This particular game is a Pokemon-esque catching spree, so that's one goal, but that still makes it easy to come across fights you do not want to participate in. My solution was to award a type of XP in the end which would be used to upgrade your caught stuff, but in a way that doesn't boost their stats. I also made Escaping much more liberal.

Now, what I've found from designing these games is that a set-level game has a totally different feel than a growing-level game. If your character has only 100 HP throughout the whole experience, then it becomes very tricky to balance a longer title with any sense of increasing difficulty. In both of my own games, I ended up integrating different types of progression that essentially boiled down to "staying power" in a fight. To compare to a traditional RPG, imagine having a Level 20 Warrior through all of Final Fantasy 1, but you're allowed to carry gradually larger supplies of Potions as the game goes on, so later enemies attack you more heavily.

A game with literally no lateral progression whatsoever... I believe the biggest problem would be longevity. Such experiences work super well for shorter games, and get increasingly harder to maintain as you ramp up the campaign length.


On a side note, I think the idea of levels and EXP are interchangeable with other types of progression, design-wise. In most RPGs, the REAL goal of leveling up is to introduce more complexity to the player through skills and such, while also forcing them to practice them by fighting things. As long as you accomplish those two goals - ramping up complexity and incentivizing the combat system - you're good to go.

 

[bgillisp]

I thought of something. If you want to see how a (mostly) no levels game works, go find and play Betrayal at Antaria (from 1997/1998). They used skills instead and those did level up, but your HP and Stamina never increases all game, so since enemies do increase in damage they deal, it turns into more a case of you have to figure out how to reduce the damage they do to you to stay alive. And since they are also decreasing your damage, you have to figure out how to increase your damage.

In that game they did it by having armor block x% of all damage taken, and you found better armor in the game, and weapons did more damage as the game moved on.

 

[Doktor_Q]

Generally, the point of a level-up system is just having a simple way for characters to get stronger in ways that the player's own familiarity with the system doesn't address.

Instead of having every skill and spell in the game from the start and overwhelming you, it's more fun to gradually unlock them, so the system grows more complex along the way.

Your stats go up, and so do the stats of enemies, but outside of poorly-implemented enemy scaling, they won't go up at the same time: enemies that were hard become easier, and enemies that were beyond your reach become feasible. Your HP will probably change relative to the damage you're taking, so you can either survive more or fewer hits even against opponents of your own level.

On the second point, "why does it come from battles"? Because your battle needs to provide something. If the purpose of the battle is entertainment, then they'll ignore any battles they don't feel like doing. If there is anything other than the actual fights; any story, any maps, anything, some people will get tired of fighting and skip as much as you let them to see that other thing. If they get some kind of reward from fighting, they'll feel more inclined, and experience / levels are usually desirable.

Another approach could be something more adversarial, a la Darkest Dungeon. Combat is the primary mechanic, but winning a fight doesn't get you anything by itself. You fight monsters, typically, because you don't have a choice- they're blocking the way forward, they're guarding a treasure you need, the mission is to hunt them down, or you got caught in an ambush and can't afford to run away. Monsters aren't a thing to seek out, they're an obstacle you need to overcome.

To put this in perspective with a different genre: Imagine an action game. You fight enemies to progress, mostly, and after a while, you're going to start ignoring enemies who aren't in your way just to get to the important stuff faster. On the other hand, if the enemies give points, or drop goodies, you're more likely to seek out combat- even something as simple as a ranking based on how many you beat.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

TBH, it will be easier to think about this in the right perspective if we actually know what your game is about, because whether a system works or not is highly related to the whole game idea itself.

 

[TheoAllen]

what purpose(s) does this mechanic serve?

*clears throat* to alleviate the (boring) repetitive combat so every battle will still simply reward you something that makes the future (boring) repetitive combat easier

But anyway, for me leveling is a simple progression bar. I know I will be rewarded if I accumulate enough exp to make it goes up. And it ties to the player. The keyword is "simple". Many tried to substitute the leveling system with another progression, but they usually aren't as simple as the level system. They don't necessarily bad though.

The only game where I'm fine if it has no level is if the game is action, quick action game, arena battle (Unreal Tournament for example), or stage based game (Strike Suit Zero, Star Wars Jedi Academy). The game battles are just obstacle, and generally, they're gone once u finished them. It's like if you are not going to kill it, it gives you the trouble later. If it's RPG that keeps spawning the encounter, I'd choose to flee most of the time. There were some games that I hit the level cap, and I lose the reason to engage battle (Fallout 3, Kingdom of Amalur). But it was never been an issue in action game. Of course, it's because I like action and I don't care if it doesn't even have a level.

A menu based battle like RM, if it has no level, it becomes like a puzzle game, and I generally don't like a puzzle. The battle with leveling system means "You already win this battle, so you will be rewarded with easier battle next time!". And being stronger by leveling up feels awesome too. I like to feel awesome in every game. "I have leveled up now, who dare to challenge me!?". And this philosophy is what I'm trying to put into my game as well. I try to give my player a whole reason to level up by baiting them with unlockable perks and use them against my bosses.

 

[Tiamat-86]

asking if a leveling system is needed is no different then asking what progression system to use.
is leveling 40% of ur stat growth and equipment 60%?
is stat growth all about equipment and their is no leveling?
is stats all in level growth and equipment just tweeks sub attribute?
does equipment even exist? whats the point if leveling cover stat growth.

all it comes down to in the end is numbers. all of those options can easyly have stats cap at the same amounts,
it just comes down to how you reach those caps.
a good example could be paper mario, no levels, limited equipment, and very few attribute points.
but just 1 point of stat progression is a significant change to ur characters growth.
when compared that to a game like dragon quest, 99levels, tons of gear, attributes from both + items.
1 points in strength in 1 game is no different then 7levels + a new sword in the other game.

 

[Animebryan]

The old saying 'Don't fix what isn't broken' comes to mind here. The real question is why are you trying to deviate from the most basic & effective form of progression? Your comment on 'Illusion of empowerment' seems off because gradually getting stronger through battles is no illusion. The only time leveling up becomes redundant is games like FF8, where all the enemies in the game level up with you which kinda defeats the purpose of leveling up to get stronger, because the game always closes the gap in stats anyway.

If you're deviating from it just to be different or original than I can see why, but its a task that's easier said than done. Horror games made with RPG Maker is 1 example where leveling is redundant, but then again, you don't usually get dragged into typical battles where stats matter. Access to skills & stats augmented by equipment or passive skills/states is an alternative to leveling but probably far more limiting. Keep in mind that as others have said, players won't want to engage in battles if there is no reward in doing so. There needs to be an incentive other than just overcoming an obstacle.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why battles are so important to you in your game & what purpose do they serve in the game.

 

[LocoChoco]

There's a reason it's a time-honored tradition for most rpgs.

It gives combat of ANY kind a purpose, and makes the repetition tolerable.

It gives the player a sense of growing with their characters, and provides reasons to linger at any given time, thoroughly mastering your characters and combat system.

It provides a point of reference for your party strength and limitations (especially during replay), and a point of reference for individual character strength.

It provides a way for the player to obtain skills on their own terms, vs by storyline/eventing, which destroys replay value.

But most importantly, it gives me a reason to want to fight. It makes every last agonizing, annoying, repetitive encounter worth my time.

Levels aren't neccessary, param progression is absolutely essential.

I'll say it again, there's a reason 90% of all professionally made RPGS have a level system.

 

[caethyril]

My take on it~

If character progression/learning is not a feature of your game, a character's "level" is a redundant concept and can be omitted. This is not the case for many RPGs.

The player and their character gain experience separately. Many RPGs focus on character progress and power, which often breaks down into two parts:

• Level: abstract representation of relevant character experience. Heroes slay monsters and complete quests; practice makes perfect.
• Equipment: everything is easier with the right tools!

There are various ways to enhance and/or entirely replace classic levelling. Pickups or story elements can boost the characters' stats and encourage completion of side-quests or exploration off the beaten path. Skill trees or purchasable training can offer an alternative approach to the standard linear advancement. Stuff like this gives the player more opportunities to customise their in-game character, which may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the effect you're trying to achieve, how well it meshes with other gameplay elements (e.g. story), and how much it adds to the development workload.

Some games focus more on player agency, e.g. the player's ability to press buttons quickly/precisely, to see/hear an enemy sneaking up on them, to solve a puzzle (perhaps within a certain time limit), etc. However, not every potential player will have good reflexes, vision/hearing, puzzle-solving skills, memory, etc. An in-game character can do whatever they're programmed to do, but real-life players are more complex and diverse. That said, some players actively want that kind of challenge! You can add difficulty/accessibility options, but it can be easier to focus on a core audience and expand later on.

Basically: do whatever fits your game and target audience. Games are an art form anyway, try stuff out and see what works!

 

[xdan]

Hey thanks everyone! I'm really liking your responses.

I'm going to pose to you another problem: I want to make my game quite open ended. At first there will only be a path, so this shouldn't be a problem. But, as the game opens up, balancing multiple areas to be equally challenging and beatable im any order may prove pretty much impossible with a leveling system.

Defeating the first few enemies of each area will give you significant exp boost, while focusing on the enemies of a single area will leave you tremendously underleveled.

I'm thinking of keeping the leveling system but making the player reach the level cap before the game truly opens up. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Animebryan]

This is where my mention of FF8's 'Enemies level up when you do' mechanic would apply. Have enemies' stats only slightly get higher in later areas but set all 'later' enemies about the same & have them scale to the player's level. Yanfly's Enemy Levels plugin has this as a feature:
http://yanfly.moe/2016/01/29/yep-64-enemy-levels/

Imagine it like this:

[Starting Area] Tier 1 enemies (weak stats)
[Area 2a] & [Area 2b] Tier 2 enemies (slightly stronger stats)
[Area 3a], [Area 3b] & [Area 3c] Tier 3 enemies (moderate stats)

That way, as the player completes an area & levels up, the enemies' levels can scale with them & will keep getting stronger when the player does.
And should the player not battle & level up as much (or try to go for a 'Low Level' playthrough), the enemies' levels won't be that high but being higher tier in stats means they'll still gradually get stronger.

 

[xdan]

This is where my mention of FF8's 'Enemies level up when you do' mechanic would apply. Have enemies' stats only slightly get higher in later areas but set all 'later' enemies about the same & have them scale to the player's level. Yanfly's Enemy Levels plugin has this as a feature:
http://yanfly.moe/2016/01/29/yep-64-enemy-levels/

Imagine it like this:

[Starting Area] Tier 1 enemies (weak stats)
[Area 2a] & [Area 2b] Tier 2 enemies (slightly stronger stats)
[Area 3a], [Area 3b] & [Area 3c] Tier 3 enemies (moderate stats)

That way, as the player completes an area & levels up, the enemies' levels can scale with them & will keep getting stronger when the player does.
And should the player not battle & level up as much (or try to go for a 'Low Level' playthrough), the enemies' levels won't be that high but being higher tier in stats means they'll still gradually get stronger.

I don't think this would work for my game in particular for many different reasons, but this is a great idea for balancing open world games in general! (I think Skyrim actually does this.)

 

[Grunwave]

Ownership is key.

As a Dungeon Master, you want your players to become vested in their characters.

D&D did this through an EXP/Leveling system, Loot, and Story. Most games have simply regurgitated this for 50 years.

If you have a better way to accomplish ownership. Do it.

 

[Aoi Ninami]

I'm going to pose to you another problem: I want to make my game quite open ended. At first there will only be a path, so this shouldn't be a problem. But, as the game opens up, balancing multiple areas to be equally challenging and beatable im any order may prove pretty much impossible with a leveling system.

Defeating the first few enemies of each area will give you significant exp boost, while focusing on the enemies of a single area will leave you tremendously underleveled.

I'm thinking of keeping the leveling system but making the player reach the level cap before the game truly opens up. Any thoughts on this?

Everything others have said about levels in general -- that levelling is satisfying in itself; that it allows enemies to be a challenge at first and then a quick-and-easy battle at about the same time you've seen enough of that enemy; that it allows features to be locked off at first and gradually unlocked; that it gives the player a reason to engage with the combat system -- applies also to keeping levels throughout the game and not hitting an early level cap. If you see the reasons why having a level system is good, and you agree that a level system is good for your game, then the early level cap means you're taking something good away from your players.

As for the open-world problem, Legend of Grimrock 2 is an example where the game is tremendously open beyond a certain (early) point, and the player has a lot of control over the order to tackle the different areas and dungeons. This is managed by a combination of three factors: (1) levels are gained rapidly at first, but the rate of gaining levels rapidly slows down, so the effect of overlevelling is kept under control; (2) the effect of levels on stats is relatively small, so that if you leave a particular dungeon until the end, the stats and equipment you've gained from other dungeons will make that dungeon easier, but not completely trivial; (3) all enemies start out being pretty tough, so there's a lot of room to improve your ability to fight them without trivialising them.

Point (3) is particularly interesting, because as a side effect, the player is encouraged to explore and dip into various dungeons, rather than powering through wherever they happen to be right now. And that's great, because exploration is fun, and the player ends up feeling rewarded when they find places they can make progress, and when they come back later to areas that had given them trouble, and are now able to get through them.