Could an action-RPG work without leveling up?

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Risen 2 tries to do this. It still has points but each point gives you something useful so it's not really assigning points so much as gaining an ability.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I've been thinking about the leveling system in the last 3 Elder Scrolls games and how it differs from most action-RPGs by making the player use skills to level up instead of leveling up to get skill points.

From what I've seen of that series, it seems to entirely possible to make an action-RPG without any point distribution or buying of skills/abilities/perks/attributes/upgrades whatsoever. A game where the player could gain different abilities, upgrades, skills, perks, and attributes based on how they play the game. In theory, this system would give the same sense of progression present in a normal action-RPG, but without the middleman. In theory, A game like this could automatically mold a character into one perfectly suited for a playstyle without actually needing to plan out stats for that playstyle.

For example, a character could gain strength by inflicting melee damage on enemies, health by taking a lot of damage, or agility by dodging enemy attacks. They could even gain perks by simply using the weapons and tactics that those perks benefit.

It seems to me like it would work, it could potentially be the ultimate way of streamlining an action-RPG while still making each character unique. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to curve exploitation either.

I'm not completely sure if a system like that could work or not though since I haven't seen a game or even a PC mod that uses a system like this, so I want to know what you guys think.

1. Do you think an action-RPG could work without the manual distribution of points or buying of skills, abilities, perks, attributes, or upgrades?

2. Do You think a system like this would work better or worse than the standard stat point distribution and ability/perk/upgrade buying systems?

An Action-RPG without RPG settings... No, sorry. Cannot work.

The entire premise the RPG is character growth through increasing experience/skills. I cannot see how this would work in any way shape or form.

 

[veloper]

If this is a question of definition, then NO. To most players, game journalists and developers, it's a CRPG when devs add some XP mechanic to a game revolving around looting and killing stuff.
All that other roleplaying "crap" has been long forgotten by the game industry, or most of it.

If this is only about what would work as a game, then sure why not.
For instance, you can easily have only one currency in a game, let's call them credits.
You play for credits and you can invest your credits in equipment and character stats. For the latter, maybe the player character buys books or takes expensive training courses.

With proper execution there's no reason why you couldn't have a good game.

 

[kommando367]

I've been thinking about the leveling system in the last 3 Elder Scrolls games and how it differs from most action-RPGs by making the player use skills to level up instead of leveling up to get skill points.

From what I've seen of that series, it seems to entirely possible to make an action-RPG without any point distribution or buying of skills/abilities/perks/attributes/upgrades whatsoever. A game where the player could gain different abilities, upgrades, skills, perks, and attributes based on how they play the game. In theory, this system would give the same sense of progression present in a normal action-RPG, but without the middleman. In theory, A game like this could automatically mold a character into one perfectly suited for a playstyle without actually needing to plan out stats for that playstyle.

For example, a character could gain strength by inflicting melee damage on enemies, health by taking a lot of damage, or agility by dodging enemy attacks. They could even gain perks by simply using the weapons and tactics that those perks benefit.

It seems to me like it would work, it could potentially be the ultimate way of streamlining an action-RPG while still making each character unique. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to curve exploitation either.

I'm not completely sure if a system like that could work or not though since I haven't seen a game or even a PC mod that uses a system like this, so I want to know what you guys think.

1. Do you think an action-RPG could work without the manual distribution of points or buying of skills, abilities, perks, attributes, or upgrades?

2. Do You think a system like this would work better or worse than the standard stat point distribution and ability/perk/upgrade buying systems?

An Action-RPG without RPG settings... No, sorry. Cannot work.

The entire premise the RPG is character growth through increasing experience/skills. I cannot see how this would work in any way shape or form.

What I meant by no leveling is a character growth system based entirely on the way Skyrim does it's skills (becuase skyrim still has leveling up and attribute points), as opposed to leveling up and using skill points.

 

[SuperSamio64]

I've always thought of The Legend of Zelda series as an Action RPGs, and none of them have a leveling system.

 

[daibakuha]

Your character advances and improves, and I was just using it to point out that it could work for Castlevania

Getting better equipment doesn't make it an RPG, it makes it makes it like a dozen other games that give you better gear the more you advance.

And some of the later Castlevania games are RPGs, with levels, gear and everything else.

 

[Azeal]

As everyone already said, FFII. An aRPG using that system would be a lot more fun though; how strong you actually were in that game was mostly guesswork and trial-and-error. Also, new game+ on the GBA game..... grinding..... GRRRRRRRRRRR

But yeah, I think an actual aRPG with that system would be fun.

 

[hoboman29]

So is the point of this forum to make every action rpg play like TES or is it to streamline every aspect of getting stronger to the particular method?

If the first, no that's a stupid idea not everything needs to be like something else and sometimes numbers make for easier use (rather than trying to grind in everything you can just distribute points evenly)

If the second maybe some game could benefit of a system like that but it sounds exploitable (do this and this at the beginning to get op fast sorta exploits) Also using a system like this could be confusing in the learning skills area. (video game logic issue ex. use spinning attack to learn mega power strike) On the positive side this could be interesting but not if every game does it.

 

[WanderingFool]

Spoiler: snip

Grinding is the real problem, you've got to move the player into a mindset where he doesn't want to grind and where the focus is on the playstyle rather than the leveling (and there's a small conflict there with the desire to level, but games like KotoR do a good job of getting rid of grinding, so it's not insurrmountable)


Basically these systems tend to be really unfun to grind. In fact any grinding system based on using abilities rather than focusing on the end result (FFX-2, LotR:Third Age etc) has this problem, because suddenly we've got conflicting goals. Sure you can kill the wolf, but to level you actually want to land as many hits on the wolf as possible instead, or take as much health damage as possible and the conflict of interests can make things boring or encourage people to stretch out battles.

This problem even goes a higher level up, really in RPGs you want experience for a quest on completing it's object rather than for completing it in a specific way (unless you want to encourage more difficult play ala Deus Ex: HR ). It feels bad if you get less XP for taking the diplomatic option than the kill everything option.

Still if the fun can be placed on playing the game rather than the levelling and grinding, the system should work well and be fun

Holy crap, you just nailed a shitload of my feelings in one post.

KOTOR was brilliant for many reasons, but you just reminded me of a big one. The gameplay was perfectly balanced. I think Dragon Age may also be this way.

Oblivion's stupid skill system is the SECOND big problem with that game. Even after the level scaling has been modded away, (in my case by adding the Nehrim conversion) you still want to fight enemies with a few different types of your weakest weapons (as well as your hands), taking as many swings as possible, so you can get that god-forsaken +5 bonus.

And stupid Deus Ex HR? I was always trying to maximize my experience, which meant sneak up on every 2 enemies and use the Three-Stooges-style double head bonk. You get all types of exp bonuses turning two 10 exp enemies into a 110 exp bonanza, so that's all the fuck I did for the whole game. And thus I was able to max out every mod because the game didn't make me specialize like the first two games did.

I loved Human Revolutions, but I agree with the mods. At least in the original[footnote]I never played it, but I watched a playthrough, and got a decent idea of it.[/footnote], when ever you got a mod canister, you had to choose which type of mod you wanted for its slot. That felt more like an RPG.

Also, yes, KotOR was the shit. Sad I actually played that game enough to ruin the disc.

 

[deathbydeath]

Umm, why has no one mentioned Stalker yet?

It's survival, not an RPG, You are ALWAYS Strelok, an average looking man with short brown hair (yes, I mean average looking, not average for video games/hollywood but actually average).

Basically it's like calling InFamous an RPG, even though no matter what you're still Cole McGrath.

Picking skills is not the sole element of an RPG.

Oh dear God, not this argument again. Look, the reason I brought up Stalker is because it confers the idea of "levels", through quality tiers of weapons and equipment. Basically, you have Loner items, Bandit items, Millitary, Duty, Freedom, etc, and obtaining these boosts the effectiveness of combatants without using an xp bar. I'm not saying it's an rpg, but that it contains ideas and mechanics that could make an rpg work without a leveling system.

 

[deathbydeath]

Umm, why has no one mentioned Stalker yet?

It's survival, not an RPG, You are ALWAYS Strelok, an average looking man with short brown hair (yes, I mean average looking, not average for video games/hollywood but actually average).

Basically it's like calling InFamous an RPG, even though no matter what you're still Cole McGrath.

Picking skills is not the sole element of an RPG.

Oh dear God, not this argument again. Look, the reason I brought up Stalker is because it confers the idea of "levels", through quality tiers of weapons and equipment. Basically, you have Loner items, Bandit items, Millitary, Duty, Freedom, etc, and obtaining these boosts the effectiveness of combatants without using an xp bar. I'm not saying it's an rpg, but that it contains ideas and mechanics that could make an rpg work without a leveling system.

That's called a "difficulty curve", and most games have it.

1: Welcome to the world of competent video games, 2: What makes this notable is that it's unregulated, nonlinear, and at the player's discretion. Sure, certain things are unavailable until certain points or areas, but that's to prevent massive unbalancing. Besides, most rpg's can calculate what level a player will be upon entering a certain area, and create a difficulty curve through it, but Stalker is largely freeform except for the barest necessities.