The Need for Experience and Levels

[Milennin]

It's a pacing tool, and used to signify a character's growth in power (stats) and ability (skills).

 

[bgillisp]

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?

My thought on this: I'd suggest you not worry about making every area equally challenging no matter what your level is. Attempting to do that is what gets us the garbage that was Oblivion's leveling system where you could beat the game at level 1, but if you were too high level the enemies would rip the NPC's to shreds.

Plus I honestly don't find games that do that fun. If an area is too hard you want to go level up to beat it, but if it scales too, then you're just never going to beat it. Instead, I'd suggest imitating Gothic 2's system. The game was very open world, but it didn't care if you wandered into a shadowbeast lair at level 1. If you do that, you either figure out how to beat it at that low a level, or you die. And that told the player to go power up and try it again.

Trying to make a game where everything is attempting to be challenging all at once to me defeats the point of leveling up. What's the point if I can beat it at level 1 or at level 99? Too many games though do that these days as they are afraid of letting players lose, and in the end it is in my opinion just not fun. Let me see if I can sneak into the dragon lair at level 1 if I want to, even though it is a monster meant for a level 56 party.

 

[Doktor_Q]

To follow up on what @bgillisp said about the dangers of "making it challenging everywhere:" the player is going to be kind of bad at your game when they start. Over time, assuming there is any skill to your system, they will learn how to get better.

What is hard for the player at first is easier later, so the complexity and difficulty from the player's perspective should be a curve as well.

 

[Rhaeami]

I just want to toss in one more food for thought point: Action games have been doing satisfying level-less progression for years, as in Metroidvania, Zelda-alikes, etc. You could always try apeing their design styles; namely, say, learning to cast AoE magic before a dungeon fillled with large groups, or being given an interrupt skill before facing enemies that charge up deadly attacks.

It's arguably a lot more work though.

 

[xdan]

I just want to toss in one more food for thought point: Action games have been doing satisfying level-less progression for years, as in Metroidvania, Zelda-alikes, etc. You could always try apeing their design styles; namely, say, learning to cast AoE magic before a dungeon fillled with large groups, or being given an interrupt skill before facing enemies that charge up deadly attacks.

It's arguably a lot more work though.

That's exactly what I do, except more complex. But basically that.

And yes it's a lot more work. I've spent over 200 hours to program a total of... 18 battles. Yep.

 

[Tai_MT]

By and large, the point of a "Level Up" system (or any progression system for that matter) is what Skinner Boxes teach us. Regular rewards at irregular intervals to keep players engaging in the behavior you want them to engage in. To build an addiction of sorts.

In general, it "Feels good" to gain levels. Even if you don't care what stats you get. Most players don't even look at how much their stats increase each level. They only care that they gained the level. Their overall power went up.

If you remove "Level Ups", you'll invariably replace them with something similar. Or, something that serves the exact same purpose.

Personally, I simply divorced my "stats" from level ups. I did this to prevent "over leveling", as well as to reward the player doing something other than engaging in combat... Doing Quests. The standard formula of RPG's is to gain a bunch of levels, overpower your character, then overpower the Quests for easy rewards. Rinse and repeat. I wanted my game to do this differently. To gain the stats you want, you must do the Quests. Combat will reward you with XP. You will level up, but your levels are "indirect power".

Largely, this is how it works:

1. Player gains stats from buying/finding new equipment (largest boost to stats).
2. Player gains more stats from completing Quests (given in the form of an item you use to increase a stat, these are set amounts, though they can change depending on how some Quests are completed).
3. A player can grind XP and Currency through combat. They will continue to gain levels.
4. The levels gained unlock things on the map. Shortcuts to new areas or through previous areas. Shops. New Quests. New NPC's sometimes. The levels promote exploring the maps multiple times, with multiple characters.

The main character himself, unlocks something "new" on the map every single level. The other characters tend to unlock something every 3 levels or so (in staggered fashion so that there is always something unlocked, every level, even if not for every character). So, the Main Storyline opens up once the main character reaches Level 2. It can then be completed at any level afterwards. A southern path out of the first town opens up when the main character reaches Level 4. A bridge across the river is constructed at Level 10 (if you don't need it for backtracking, you can use it to skip ahead in the game). At level 5, a shop opens up in the Tavern. At level 7, a Quest for slaying some Bandits opens up.

Your first party member will open up a new Quest at Level 2 or Level 3 (depending on which you get) and will continue this trend for every 3 levels afterwards (Level 2, Level 5, Level 8, etcetera. Level 3, Level 6, Level 9, etcetera). These are usually "Personal Quests" for the characters, though they are sometimes Quests that pertain to the whole party or a portion of the world. Some of these Quests also have results in which their "Skills" grow in power.

That is to say, the "Skills" each character has can "Level Up", but only through completing Quests as well. Each character skill levels up 3 times (up to Tier 4, it starts at Tier 1). This provides a little incentive to "Grind" your levels if you prefer, but doesn't quite break the game if you do. You can grind to Level 100 and still not have the stats to complete the Tier 4 required Quest to get the last level of your skill.

Another game I have, has a system in which your "Level" is merely your "Rank", which gets you "Perks" in town with NPC's and the player spends their "XP" to obtain necessary things. 100 XP traded to a "Trainer" to get +1 Attack. 250 XP traded to a vendor for "A unique sword not being sold". The system in this game promotes grinding XP, but also spending it fairly wisely. It's also labeled "Influence" instead of "Experience", to denote that you're actually trading your reputation for favors. On its own, the Rank and XP are meaningless. They only matter when you get into town and can do something with them. So, you can grind for 20 levels if you like, but those levels are meaningless until you set food back in town to spend them. It promotes players "moving forward" as there is a larger incentive to finish a dungeon or a series of Quests rather than running in circles outside of town and gaining a slow set of stats. It's more beneficial to spend the XP in a "lump sum" instead of many small amounts.

Just my two cents on it.

 

[LocoChoco]

By and large, the point of a "Level Up" system (or any progression system for that matter) is what Skinner Boxes teach us. Regular rewards at irregular intervals to keep players engaging in the behavior you want them to engage in. To build an addiction of sorts.

In general, it "Feels good" to gain levels. Even if you don't care what stats you get. Most players don't even look at how much their stats increase each level. They only care that they gained the level. Their overall power went up.

That may have been true in the 80s and early 90s, but I don't think it rings true for today's gamer. I don't get addicted to battle, exp, or stat progression anymore, I've done hundreds of variations of it. I do get addicted to grinding in games like FF8 or FF6 where you have AP-type systems to work with and customize your characters, unlocking and managing new skills both in and out of battle.

If you're trying to create addicts, you need a stronger drug than experience these days.

In general, it "Feels good" to gain levels. Even if you don't care what stats you get. Most players don't even look at how much their stats increase each level. They only care that they gained the level. Their overall power went up.

Probably true of the avergae game today, but it used to be an unspoken understanding between developer and player. . . If you avoid battle, you will get rolled by one of the bosses. Like there is a wall out there, and you will hit it if you coast, lol. And you would strive to have the highest level, best characters and party out of all your friends. And we collected the stat buff items to tune our character builds to be the best of the best of our circles, and that helped cement those early games in a major way. A way few games will in this fabricated, single serving industry we have today. It made an rpg fun to know that you had to put in the work to beat the last boss, because hitting buttons alone wasn't going to do it. Mastering those few techniques wasn't going to do it. You had to put in the time to earn your stripes in battle, and find all the secret and bonus content you could.

My only beef with level systems is that they usually end at 100.

EDIT; This gives me a good place to mention an idea I had relating to this.

I always wanted to make a game where the more exp you get, the older your character becomes, hindering some stats whilst their specialties and skills become honed to perfection.

And the more total wealth that passes through the player's hands, the more lordly they become - which for the concept I had changed things dramatically because the player could no longer open certain chests (theft charge, but NPC doors started to become locked in towns and cities anyway), or pick locks, basically do anything to warrant charges or 'drama', and a tax system grew as your total 'seen' wealth grew.

So the player had to REALLY manage encounters, and trading whilst trying to complete the story. The problem was balancing that so that it doesn't become an annoying player-hatred system.

 

[mauvebutterfly]

Regarding combining level scaling with an open world, Tales of Maj'Eyal did a pretty good job with that. When you have 6 tier 1 dungeons that the player can do in any order, how do you make levelling relevant while simultaneously avoid making dungeons done later too trivial? Monster/zone level caps.

Let's say your T1 (tier 1) dungeons have a range of 1-12. Monsters level up with you until you hit level 12. At that point monsters stop levelling up with you and quickly become outclassed.

Additionally, Tales of Maj'Eyal locked the level of a dungeon the first time you entered it, so monsters in that dungeon wouldn't level up with you. This meant that you could feel like you were getting stronger in that dungeon without overlevelling for the other T1 dungeons. This does mean you could enter all the T1 dungeons at level 1 if you wanted to trivialise them, but you'd also get less experience and treasure if you did that.

T2 dungeons would have ranges like 12-20, which meant that if you entered those at a low level they would still be at least level 12, making them distinct from the T1 dungeons while still being free to do in any order. You could even skip some of the T1 dungeons if you wanted to get the better loot from the T2 dungeons and felt you were ready for it.

Tales of Maj'Eyal was a roguelike game, so a system that allowed the player to start over and do things in any order was necessary. I think their solution worked pretty well.

 

[Aesica]

The way I see it, levels are twofold:

1. They serve as a sort of balancing mechanism and difficulty control for the player. If an area is too hard, it becomes easier after a few levels. Granted, in today's gaming world, you don't want to make the player feel like they have to stop and grind, it still gives players who want an easier time a choice. Better than the silly "choose your difficulty level at the start of the game" that seems to show up in a lot of RPGs these days.
   
2. They add a sense of progression to the game, as well as (if done properly) give the player a rough idea of how far along they are in the game overall.

I've seen a few games that left out levels (and actually enjoyed one of them through to the end) but overall, it makes battles feel really pointless. If I don't need gold, and there's no experience, then why am I even bothering to fight anything? If the only answer is "because you made running away hard, ROFL" then...ugh.

On another note, one thing I loved about vintage FF games was low level runs. Beating FF6 at the lowest possible level was extremely satisfying back in the day. On the flipside, maxing your level out before tackling superbosses is also enjoyable. Leaving out levels cuts out both of those gameplay options from your game.

In a nutshell, leaving out levels is easier for the developer, but it's going to make for a more limited gameplay experience for the players.

 

[Roguedeus]

Has anyone considered multiple ways of supporting power progression within the same game?
(Troop battles would always award random loots and other resources long after static awards, like chests, are consumed)

Some Classes require only EXP to Level, and have a minor gear treadmill. (New players)
- As a result they are locked into a very linear progression, that is heavily weighted towards early success but struggles later on to encourage dabbling into the next tier of Classes.

Some Classes require faction trainers (handed tasks) to Level, and have a moderate gear treadmill. (Most players)
- As a result they are provided less linear progression within the bounds of 'Faction' themes. Often while mixing in a few previous tier Classes for familiarity.

Some Classes might utilize faction trainers or unlock challenges, and have a punishing gear treadmill. (Fanatic players)
- As a result they have little guidance and are free to fumble their way to min-max heaven. (Open-World Arch)

Each tier would be unlocked as the player consumes game content, at a pace that hopes to keep them engaged over multiple playthroughs.

 

[Basileus]

By and large, the point of a "Level Up" system (or any progression system for that matter) is what Skinner Boxes teach us. Regular rewards at irregular intervals to keep players engaging in the behavior you want them to engage in. To build an addiction of sorts.

This isn't the purpose of leveling/progression systems at all. You are thinking of more modern inventions, such as mobile gaming and MMOs, created decades after leveling systems were invented.

Levels were created by tabletop games to serve the same function as stats - to determine the capabilities of the player's character. You need to define what your character can and cannot do. Stats determined the physical/mental ability of the character, level determined the experience of the character. Having a Strength stat of 18 meant you could push a boulder out of the way, having a class level of 10 meant you were skilled enough to use more advanced techniques. It was a means of gating access to powerful spells/skills that should be too difficult for a novice to use, and also generally granted some stat bonuses to make rolls easier to reflect your character getting better at their job (i.e. Lv 10 Wizard can use more spells per day because he is better at magic, Lv 10 Rogue can pass dodge rolls easier because he should be better at avoiding attacks than a Lv 1 Rogue because he has more battle experience).

Levels and progression were a means to show a character's growth as a campaign could easily cover a character's entire career from rookie to legend. There needs to be some difference between a novice and a master. Level requirements on spells and abilities is one way to do so. Stat growth is also important to allow more experienced characters to actually be more capable. There is no real reason this has to be done through character/class levels but it is a simple and well-studied method.

Does your game give players access to every spell and ability in the game from the very start? If not then you will need some method of gating them so the player acquires them over time as they are ready. How about stats? If the player is expected to do more damage over time then there needs to be a progression system in place to scale up the player's abilities as they grow over time. Again, progression is not required for a game to be good, but a game typically needs some kind of progression system if it plans to bill itself as an RPG.

 

[Tai_MT]

This isn't the purpose of leveling/progression systems at all. You are thinking of more modern inventions, such as mobile gaming and MMOs, created decades after leveling systems were invented.

Yep... Leveling systems were definintely invented before 1930. While I couldn't find an exact year for the Skinner Box's creation, most every article cites the research into Operant Conditioning and creation of the Skinner Box somewhere around 1930 to 1947... when Skinner was at college. Someone more dedicated to research than I am, could probably find the exact year.

Near as I can tell, the first game to ever use "Experience Points" and a "Level Up" system, was "Blackmoor". Which was published in like 1971.

The point of the "Level Up" system in these early games was to prevent the game from "ending". That is, they were having so much fun with their early scenarios and ideas, that they didn't want things to end. So, they created this system by which their characters would "level up" in order to continue the story of those characters.

While it was not created specifically out of the Skinner Box work, it uses all the exact same Operant Conditioning. Every Progression system out there follows that model of Operant Conditioning and what we've learned from the Skinner Box.

Even the most exploitative aspects of that Skinner Box have been around a long time, it's not a modern invention (it's been around at least as long as Slot Machines, probably as long as gambling itself).

Whether you are specifically using an idea from the Skinner Box or not, you are still using Operant Conditioning. Intentionally or not. Regular rewards at irregular intervals.

Consider for a moment a game in which you will never get more power, you will never gain new skills, never gain new powers, never gain new equipment. You are as strong at the end of the game as you were at the beginning. How many people would play that game? How many would find it boring? We can see this in a lot of Board Games of today. How many people have ever finished a game of "Monopoly"? Don't most people quit before the game ever ends? How many people get excited to play it? It's only progression system is in making more money, but it is designed in such a way that only one player is engaging this progression system at a time, while the rest slowly suffer until the game ends. What about games without any progression system at all? Yahtzee? Sorry! ? Cards Against Humanity? Games without a Progression System often need to be very short in order to maximize fun, and players often don't play more than a few rounds. The longest Cards Against Humanity game I've ever seen went 4 full rounds (roughly an hour of gameplay).

Consider how many people consider "Leveling Up" an "RPG System", when it's simply a Progression System. A game isn't even considered an "RPG" anymore, unless you gain levels or stats of some sort, despite the fact that there are numerous Tabletops in which you do neither of these things and they're still RPG's.

Whether you like it or not, Operant Conditioning extends the life of any game that exists. It would be impossible to create a 20 hour game without that Skinner Box. Without the lessons learned from it.

Remember that players who are "close to a level up" won't turn the game off until they get that level in most cases. Consider how many players will "gain a few extra levels" just to smash your carefully designed "balance". Consider how often, you, yourself, has grinded in a game of your own volition. Consider how few people would play MOBAs if there were no "Progression" systems of earning currencies or buying skins... or "gaining levels" in game.

Without a Progression System, the "fun" value of a game is maybe an hour, or two, and then it's put away for months on end before anyone wants to pick it up again.

Even Visual Novels, which don't have levels or stats... have a Progression System. What is theirs? Seeing all the endings. "Collecting them all" as it were. VN's often even record which ones you've gotten and seen. It's to get you to play the game again. To keep playing.

That's the point of a Progression System. To get players addicted. Get them to keep playing your game. Because, otherwise, you don't really have a game that extends beyond about an hour of gameplay.

Even if you remove levels and XP from a game, you'll just replace them with something else. A new Progression System. A different one. That does exactly the same thing Levels and XP did. New Equipment. New Characters. New something every so often. Something to make the player want to play more and see what they get next.

Regular Rewards at Irregular Intervals.

 

[Basileus]

@Tai_MT
You have managed to completely miss my point. Tabletop RPGs were not designed as Skinner Boxes. They were designed as a set of rules that people could use to role-play an adventure, often a fantasy adventure like the Lord of the Rings. The stat and level progression was the means by which you could determine what was possible. Your character was NOT you. There had to be some means to measure how strong/fast/smart/experienced a character was to determine what actions could or could not be taken, otherwise it would be a jumbled mess.

Video games are a bit different since they can only do what they are programmed to do. Bringing a tabletop adventure to video game form is the entire point of most early RPGs. But obviously the technical limits of the time were a huge factor in what could actually be done in the game so stats and the actions they governed were mostly limited to combat. And yes, I am well aware that many early video games were designed to milk quarters in arcades and that this mindset carried over into console games for some time. But games like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy were not designed to be Skinner Boxes. Intentionally making Skinner Boxes is not the SNES RPG model, but rather the MMO and Mobile model sadly used by many companies today. Chrono Trigger is not made to get players addicted. Subscription games like World of Warcraft are.

You seem to be thinking of "Empty Levels" were each level is relatively easily acquired, so the next level always feels close, and the rewards/bonuses are small so you need a lot of them to stack up into anything useful. This is not a model that all RPGs use, and it certainly wasn't how the Stat/Level system was meant to be used in tabletop games like Dungeons and Dragons.

Once again, there is no problem if you don't want to use traditional levels in your game. Honestly I think most games use them just out of habit at this point rather than for any clear purpose.

But let me ask you this - Do the player characters in your game have everything they need right form the start?

What kind of fantasy adventure doesn't have the heroes finding magic swords and enchanted rings and things along the way? What kind of story starts off with the main characters already masters of every skill they will ever need? Why play/read/watch anything if the characters can already overcome any obstacle from the start without having to learn or overcome anything?

You need something to show a sense of the story progressing. Every single power-up in your game could be tied to major story events - characters learning new techniques after overcoming some personal flaw or getting a stat boost for defeating a powerful boss. Each mark of improvement along the way would reflect some growth of character or major accomplishment.

Ask people who played Final Fantasy IV about Rydia overcoming her fear of fire in the story to learn the Fire spell in-game and tell me it's all just a big soulless Skinner Box.

 

[VisitorsFromDreams]

I definitely feel like its hard to have combat without levelling as getting stronger to end fights quicker and easier is the main outcome from levelling. I have thought about ways of trying to work around that as id like to make something turn based without levelling but so far I havent found a good solution. I mean something like fighting to earn money to upgrade your gear might work in theory but in the end levelling your gear instead of your character isnt much of a change. Its a bit different for games with real time combat where skill and reflexes are more important than stats. Its certainly an interesting topic without a lot of ideologies behind it.

 

[Tai_MT]

@Tai_MT
You have managed to completely miss my point. Tabletop RPGs were not designed as Skinner Boxes. They were designed as a set of rules that people could use to role-play an adventure, often a fantasy adventure like the Lord of the Rings. The stat and level progression was the means by which you could determine what was possible. Your character was NOT you. There had to be some means to measure how strong/fast/smart/experienced a character was to determine what actions could or could not be taken, otherwise it would be a jumbled mess.

The stats existed as a means of carrying the character forward to the next adventure. Continuing their story. Imagine how much "fun" it is to play an adventure in a Tabletop... and once it's over... you create a brand new character to run the next dungeon. Or, start over with all the default "new character" stuff. The extra stats in most Tabletops aren't even given out every level. Most are given out every few levels. In a game with a good DM, you are going to be finding "magic" items roughly as often as you gain stats (about every 4 levels or so).

This is why the Progression Systems came to be in Tabletops, but they serve the same purpose as the Skinner Box. Extend play time.

Video games are a bit different since they can only do what they are programmed to do. Bringing a tabletop adventure to video game form is the entire point of most early RPGs. But obviously the technical limits of the time were a huge factor in what could actually be done in the game so stats and the actions they governed were mostly limited to combat. And yes, I am well aware that many early video games were designed to milk quarters in arcades and that this mindset carried over into console games for some time. But games like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy were not designed to be Skinner Boxes. Intentionally making Skinner Boxes is not the SNES RPG model, but rather the MMO and Mobile model sadly used by many companies today. Chrono Trigger is not made to get players addicted. Subscription games like World of Warcraft are.

Most games aren't designed to be Skinner Boxes. Yet, they use all the same things you learn from the Skinner Box. Addictive elements to extend play time. After all, who would finish Final Fantasy IV if it didn't have Progression Systems? I certainly didn't enjoy the story all that much... The gameplay itself drags on far too long when it could've been completed at the underground section and there didn't need to be a "Moon" section. I much preferred the story of FFV and FFVI to it, as they were better written. But, the Progression of FFIV was one in which your party members were swapped out frequently as well as your equipment. It wasn't your levels that mattered in the game, but which party members you would gain/lose as you went along. It also mattered every single time you opened a chest and got a piece of equipment. Both mattered far more than gaining a level.

Yet, both served the same purpose. Regular rewards at irregular intervals. A Skinner Box.

You seem to be thinking of "Empty Levels" were each level is relatively easily acquired, so the next level always feels close, and the rewards/bonuses are small so you need a lot of them to stack up into anything useful. This is not a model that all RPGs use, and it certainly wasn't how the Stat/Level system was meant to be used in tabletop games like Dungeons and Dragons.

Nope, this applies to all levelling up. Even if you gain nothing from the next level, you'll play to gain the next level if you're close, before quitting. It has little to do with what power you actually gain from a level. After a certain point in Fallout 4, I had every Perk I could've ever wanted. Yet, I was still killing every enemy for the XP. I was still happy about gaining a level when it happened. If I were close to the next level, I wouldn't put the game down until I gained it. But, the levels were meaningless to me. A smattering of extra HP I didn't need, a choice of a Perk I didn't want (or need, as I was already stupidly broken). Yet, here I was. Finishing up all the content in the game at level 98. All the DLC. I'd been stupidly broken and overpowered since Level 46. Lots of empty levels, and yet I was still forging ahead to gain more. Seeking out repeatable Quests to gain more XP, or seeking out the strongest monsters to maximize it.

Most players get a momentary thrill from gaining a level, even if that level is "empty". It's the nature of the Skinner Box. Regular Rewards at Irregular Intervals.

Once again, there is no problem if you don't want to use traditional levels in your game. Honestly I think most games use them just out of habit at this point rather than for any clear purpose.

But let me ask you this - Do the player characters in your game have everything they need right form the start?

What kind of fantasy adventure doesn't have the heroes finding magic swords and enchanted rings and things along the way? What kind of story starts off with the main characters already masters of every skill they will ever need? Why play/read/watch anything if the characters can already overcome any obstacle from the start without having to learn or overcome anything?

You need something to show a sense of the story progressing. Every single power-up in your game could be tied to major story events - characters learning new techniques after overcoming some personal flaw or getting a stat boost for defeating a powerful boss. Each mark of improvement along the way would reflect some growth of character or major accomplishment.

Or, you could have a story that is a Visual Novel in which you gain nothing except the ending and progress absolutely nothing but the story. Or a "Walking Simulator" like What Remains of Edith Finch... Games with no real "Progression System", which are completed in a couple hours and promptly put away.

Ask people who played Final Fantasy IV about Rydia overcoming her fear of fire in the story to learn the Fire spell in-game and tell me it's all just a big soulless Skinner Box.

Nobody has ever said Skinner Boxes were soulless. You're under some mistaken impression that "Skinner Box = Evil". This is not the case. Exploitative Skinner Boxes are evil... ones that promote gambling, namely. Loot Boxes? Exploitative. Really low drop rates for RNG in MMOs? Exploitative. The fact of the matter is, there are very few Exploitative Skinner Boxes compared to the amount of Skinner Boxes that exist to simply enhance the game.

You know what else is a Skinner Box? Your job. Your occupation. They give you money (regular reward) at irregular intervals (usually every 2 weeks, but not always, and it's for certain amount of hours, not always the same amount every week) for work you do. Just by engaging with Currency in any way, you're engaging with a Skinner Box.

The fact of the matter is, all the Skinner Box ever did was show us how the human mind works. Nothing more, nothing less. Or rather, how the brain works in most species. It showed us how a player can be trained to seek enjoyment from what would otherwise be mundane activities. Or, to seek the mundane activities out in order to gain a little bit of enjoyment at a later date.

That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Skinner Boxes are what make an RPG that lasts more than 3 hours possible. What makes them enjoyable for longer than 3 hours without causing burn-out or causing them to feel like a job or a chore.

If you didn't use Levels and XP, you'd use another form of the Skinner Box to provide the exact same enjoyment a player would get from Levels/XP. That's the point of a Progression System. To extend play time. Get players addicted to something to extend that play time. Is addiction fun? Can it be fun? Those addicted argue that it is fun. Is playing the same game of LoL with different players, on the same map really "fun"? It is to those addicted, isn't it? To those who find the whole thing meaningless and pointless (like myself. Not enough mental stimulation for me to get enjoyment out of it, or to see matches as anything more than playing exactly the same every single time) the addiction methods don't work. What about Loot Boxes? Well, those don't work on me either, because its the wrong sort of "Progression System" for me. They are rewards I don't care about for characters I don't care about, that do nothing I care about. Oh, I can "tag" an area of the map? Who cares? I can change the appearance of this character? Who cares? But, if those same Loot Boxes were applied to something like Pokémon, in which they are used to unlock Pokémon... or give you rare ones... Well, suddenly I care. Suddenly, I get a lot of enjoyment out of those Skinner Boxes.

That's the key, right there. The "Reward" has to be something your player wants. Which is why Video Games are absolutely flush with Skinner Boxes. To extend play time. To extend enjoyment. Players "addicted" to your last game will likely purchase the next one as well. Or the DLC. Or whatever else.

I loved Farcry 3. Got "addicted" to it. Enough that I bought Farcry 4. But, I didn't buy any Farcry game after it. Why? Because Farcry 4 wasn't as "addicting" and "fun" as Farcry 3 had been. It turned into a "collect-a-thon" with no real rewards for doing the collection. Farcry 3 had rewarded nearly every single action I'd done in the game.

It is what it is.

Personally, I don't mind Skinner Boxes as long as they're not used to promote gambling or to make a game "artificially fun". Like say... turning what amounts to a 4 hour game into a 200 hour game because the game is super stingy with it's "unlocks" and "level ups" and whatever else. I like the feeling of Progression. I hate the feeling of Being Exploited.

 

[xdan]

I appreciate your responses, but the idea that games cannot keep you engaged more than a few hours without levels is... Not something I'm even willing to consider.

Keep discussing, tho. I actually wanted this to be less about my case and more of a general discussion on the topic.

 

[Tai_MT]

I appreciate your responses, but the idea that games cannot keep you engaged more than a few hours without levels is... Not something I'm even willing to consider.

Keep discussing, tho. I actually wanted this to be less about my case and more of a general discussion on the topic.

Think about it, how many games have you played with a Progression System? Ever go back and play old games without one? Donkey Kong? Donkey Kong Jr.? Games where once you've seen every stage (which is like 4 at max), the gameplay gets dull, because you've already done it? How about Galaga where the levels don't change, but the "enemy patterns" do? There are a lot of older video games out there without a "Progression System" of some sort. Fun in these quickly wanes and becomes tedious. How about Missile Command? Pacman?

In games without a strict Progression System, what used to serve as that, was simply "getting to the next level". The players could get invested because they wanted to see what the next level looked like. Super Mario Bros had this in spades. 32 levels to see. The goal of seeing the next level kept a player invested.

Games without a Progression System of some sort get dull pretty quickly. The player runs through their content in about an hour. Sometimes as many as three hours. Then, they're bored. Nothing more to do. Nothing more to see. It's the same grind everywhere. It becomes a second job.

Even if you remove levels entirely, you will replace them with something else. Skills that gain power over time. New equipment that gets more powerful. New Skills. New locations that aren't just "water world, ice world, forest, lava world" stand-ins. Maybe, if you're a good writer, the next piece of plot will replace Level Ups. Though, most game devs aren't very good writers...

It is what it is. You can use XP and Levels, or you can replace them with something that's the same. Regular Rewards at Irregular Intervals.

Though, I do have to agree that if all I'm getting from combat is money and items... I have no need to engage in your combat unless you thrust it upon me. Combat in an RPG tends to be the worst sort of boring. It sort of needs an incentive to do it. After all, I don't need new equipment or items if I don't engage in combat.

 

[Grunwave]

Combat in an RPG tends to be the worst sort of boring. It sort of needs an incentive to do it. After all, I don't need new equipment or items if I don't engage in combat.

Really a subtopic to this, but I believe a necessary discussion to incorporate.

I, personally, have always enjoyed "good" RPG combat. Dragon Warrior/Quest was enough 30 years ago. Multiple characters in Phantasy Star, FF and the DQ sequels allowed for more intricate combat. Later real time combat was introduced to heighten the experience.

Combo inputs later manifested, I think the first with Cyan in FF3/6. I feel that pinnacled with Xeno Gears.

Chrono Trigger introduced combo/synergy. Probably one of the first to do AVOIDABLE combat.

If a game with Xeno Gears or Chrono Trigger combat came out today, I am pretty sure I would truly enjoy it.


As for my project, I think I have created a solid combat system. Certainly not as good as Chrono Trigger, but it is meaningful, challenging and grants ample rewards.


PS: should this go under a different topic?

 

[Starfox]

Personally, I don't mind Skinner Boxes as long as they're not used to promote gambling or to make a game "artificially fun". Like say... turning what amounts to a 4 hour game into a 200 hour game because the game is super stingy with it's "unlocks" and "level ups" and whatever else. I like the feeling of Progression. I hate the feeling of Being Exploited.

I think this is the most important take away from this thread. It's ok to put your player in a "Skinner Box", as long they don't feel like that's what's happening. If your progression system feels like a grind it needs to be tweaked. If players *have* to grind to complete the content it should be tweaked. If players want to grind because they are enjoying the rewards enough to do it of their own volition you've hit the sweet spot. It doesn't matter if its levels, gold, skill points, or extra multi-ball power ups in a pinball machine what matters is that the next step is theoretically obtainable while having fun.

 

[xdan]

Think about it, how many games have you played with a Progression System?

Hundreds.

Ever go back and play old games without one?

Constantly.

Any other questions?