Should we ditch levels?

[Ellie]

Now that enemies scale, weapons scale, EXP given scales, and difficulty all scale alongside the player's level in most games, is it time to ditch them entirely?

My thought is that if there were no levels, then what could instead change is the difficulty by means of tactics of the enemies the player encounters. They would stay the same, only their environment getting more difficult.

See, if the enemies all learn how to play properly, but alongside the player gains 50 HP and a new amazing weapon, it's all a bit pointless.

I think if I work in RPG Maker again I will ditch levels entirely, for the player. Enemies will have some kind of stat to show how difficult they are, but this won't be something as silly as an ever increasing "level". Enemies should be hard because of their AI, not because they have 10x the HP of a weaker enemy.

 

[coyotecraft]

Potentially, you could be creating a scenario where there is only one way to win. For the sake of being fun I think you need to have room for the player to play. I personally hate games where you HAVE to exploit element weaknesses or boss battles that use cheap gimmicks like a death spell, where it doesn't matter how strong you are, if you don't have the accessory that protects against it you'll always lose. In final fantasy 13, if you didn't use the right formation to break the enemy you were in for a long battle; plus it had level caps so boss battles would never be too easy short.

A smarter AI would have to be one that predicts what the player is going to do. So mute the spell caster, or cast reflect on the characters so any healing spells will heal the enemy instead. Basically it would use buffs and debuff, right? I mean, what else can it do? Tactic games can use environment for height and terrain advantages. Xenosaga had this turn bonus wheel. I guess if you want a smarter AI you need smarter game mechanics, otherwise things become routine.

 

[noise shaman]

depends ENTIRELY on the game and its game mechanics. its impossible to determine this as a generality.

some games make use of levels really well. others—not so much. yeah, when the only purpose of levels is higher stats then that's kinda dumb. lazy design.

i normally dislike scaling enemies, because it eliminates the ability to grind. now, personally, i hate grinding, so scaling enemies might be something i enjoy. but from a design perspective, you risk alienating the players who enjoy that kind of thing.

imo find a balance. maybe eliminate levels, but include some kind of mechanic that rewards players who enjoy grinding. some people like to frontload their battles so they can push through the rest of the story. and if that's the way they want to play the game, let them.

 

[ZenVirZan]

As much as levels may technically feel useless, I'd be much happier to enter a battle knowing that it does have a place, even if it is small, in the grand scheme of things. I have played games that have no levels and the battles feel like a waste of time, because you can't go the extra mile and grind (as shaman said) to get an advantage, and it really just feels all out of my hands - kind of like I was given this character, now I must use it, rather than given my character to build upon and put the time and effort into, if that makes sense.

This, of course, does depend on if you add a mechanic to replace the levels - perhaps the ability to find new moves in the field, or create your own combos or something. Maybe just an extended Materia system, or something that the player can use to dynamically personalise their character? Something like those would reduce the previous issue to dust and make the experience feel far less static.

 

[Byron]

Hmm... I think levels give a battle half it's meaning. You grind to become stronger, gain levels, abilities, money and items.
Levels give the idea that your character still has stuff to learn. You gain skills from leveling up.
That being said, there are a number of ways to remove "levels" by having the monster give off a kind of EXP that only helps you learn skills but you gain no stat increases...
But from there where do stat increases go? How do you gain more stats? Essentially how does your character become stronger? If he doesn't, grinding loses half its meaning.
I think it would require a lot of dumbing down the AI at the start.
Maybe.

 

[Jason]

Sphere Grid!

 

[aphadeon]

This is an interesting topic (finally!).

I don't think there's a strong reason to support a numeric scale for progression, other than it being the de-facto standard.

For example, instead of using numbers, just go with a more realistic "you just get better at things the more you do them". For example, your healing spell could have, say, a 1/100 chance of powering up just slightly every time you use it. On the backend, programming wise, it has to have a numeric system- but even this doesnt have to be a level. It could simply be a (float) multiplier.

Removing the vernacular "level" does not have to inherently mean removing progression, improvement, or even grinding.

A common mechanic I see being employed more and more, is to somehow track capability average on the backend, and simply use a color-coded indicator of "this is a too hard mob, this is the appropriate mob, this mob is too easy".

 

[Ellie]

See, I like that idea more than levels because it benefits you for doing certain things, rather than just a blanket "you did x so now you're better at everything". So casting heal spells, especially when doing so lets you win a battle, makes you better at casting them. Using a fire spell against somebody weak against fire, so logical, gives you technically exp to raise your fire skill casting. Reward the player for thinking logically.

Or, rather than getting better, it could get "different" (which is a kind of better) - allowing for more tactics and more combos. Instead of just heal you also have regen and life type skills, etc.

 

[Jumping Jack Flash]

Levels are central to an RPG, without yoi wouldn't be making an RPG you just be making a normal game.

 

[Ellie]

I'd rather games were just games and game makers didn't do things they didn't want to do just to make sure they conform to a specific genre. Besides, I don't think levels are intrinsic to a game being an RPG at all (although I can't think of any examples off the top of my head that don't have them or something like them).

 

[Byron]

See, I like that idea more than levels because it benefits you for doing certain things, rather than just a blanket "you did x so now you're better at everything". So casting heal spells, especially when doing so lets you win a battle, makes you better at casting them. Using a fire spell against somebody weak against fire, so logical, gives you technically exp to raise your fire skill casting. Reward the player for thinking logically.

Or, rather than getting better, it could get "different" (which is a kind of better) - allowing for more tactics and more combos. Instead of just heal you also have regen and life type skills, etc.

Actually this is a better system and could possibly make use for "under leveled" monsters for lack of a better term. Fight the easy enemies to advance your weaker skills! Something like that sounds cool, because in rpgs having "leveled" monsters makes lower leveled monsters redundant quite quickly.
Perhaps they would also increase the stats that use them too. Using magic increases your magic attack/intelligence/whatever you want to call it.
The hardest one I think to increase I think would be agility, but perhaps there could be a dodge skill or something.
Guys we might be onto an actual system here.

 

[coyotecraft]

You know how some books use chapters and others don't? Or some have a lot of chapters but they are really short and just continuations of the same scene, the author just arbitrarily plugged in chapter headers with no rhyme or reason.
That's what I think of levels.
Getting a stat boost of only a few points isn't going to change anything. And the next skill isn't for another 5 levels. So why not instead of 12345 its just 1...2. A level up with a significant difference.

 

[aphadeon]

Just to expand on the alternative presented, it sparked an idea in my head which sounds interesting, and I figured I'd share it for the point of making a case that a system could actually be more interesting without traditional level numbers.

Imagine starting the game with a generic Heal spell. No level indicator, and very little, if any, information on what it does. On the backend, rather than going linearly towards "better", you have a lot more freedom. For example, remove targeting limitations. Watch what the player uses it on. Nudge him towards the beaten path, but should he outright defy it, modify the behaviour of the spell to match. Examples:
If he keeps trying to cast in on enemies, slowly morph it into a life drain spell.
If he only ever casts it on himself, and constantly, morph it into a regen spell.
If he only casts it on the weakest party member, and constantly, morph it into a "here, let my mana absorb your damage for 3 turns!" spell.

Sprinkle a bit of subtle proficiency increases as you go, and you've got a system that's not only viable, but interesting. And I like Amy's suggestion here- for example, say theres (use your own formula here) a 1/100 chance of the skill improving - when used properly (to borrow that example, using fire vs a fire-weak foe), make it a 1/25 chance. (Of course, odds could diminish as the proficiency rises, i.e. diminishing returns).

 

[Byron]

Oh wow I like your idea! Having a spell morph towards the players needs! Using your example I assume that the player would no longer have the healing spell.
Maybe things like fire spells on an ally could create a fire shield or something on the like.

Expanding upon amys idea
Perhaps the better you use the spell increases the chance of the skill improving.
So say you use a fire spell on a monster weak to fire. Chance of it improving goes up to 2/25. Now if you use it against a monster that isn't weak to it, it stays the same and using it against a monster that is resistant puts you back onto 1/25
Now a large question here. Would morphing and improving be the same, or done separately.
Most likely not. Going from Fire to Fire II is different than going from Fire to Fire Barrier. Morphing would most likely be measured by the usage amount.

Guys. I have to say this system is shaping up pretty nicely!

Edit: Oh and one last idea before I go to bed. It's kinda the opposite of what Coyote said. I think for the player to truley have a great feel from this, I think the skill increase should be gradual. The damage delt by the skill slowly goes up, and the cost gradually down before morphing into a powerful-er version. I think that this would give off the illusion that the character is learning how to use the skill more effectively.

 

[Erichermit]

I think that in most cases, levels ought to go.

Well, actually, I only kind of think that.

I think that EXP needs to go. Levels that only represent higher numbers need to go. EXP only really exists as a method to encourage grinding. The only purpose for grinding, as far as I can see, is to pad out gameplay time. A truly good game should be able to stand without these crutches.

The system I would see myself using would be that each Boss, and perhaps a few specific story events, will give one "Level." A level might mean any number of different things, but ideally I would hope that it means a new skill or ability that legitimately changes the way (even if only slightly) the game is played. Even if your level up only means bigger numbers, I would still limit them in this fashion.

I think that the Zelda series has some of the best "level ups." Sure, an increase to your HP is nice, but your real "level ups" are discovering new gear (abilities) and increasing your own skill.