Get rid of levels (and do not have classes)

[clearer]

Levels break games -- with levels instead of playing a desert ranger, you play a character who is leveled in a desert ranger fashion and instead of playing a field medic you just happen to have leveled your character to resemble a field medic. Essentially the problem is that levels require stopping the game to make choises which are, really, not essential to the game, the story or your character. Stats (and thus levels) only matter to players.

An alternative advancement system could be based on stat-use (skill, attribute, etc) -- when ever you use something, you get a chance to increase it (or get experience towards increasing it -- both are fine). This advancement system invites that experience is not shared, however this is not a given (if someone in the party shoots a gun, everybody can get experience towards shooting guns). This will make it difficult to gain Fallout style perks, however, this could be introduced "achievement"-style -- if you've fired a laser gun 2000 times, you've prolly found out a few tricks that you didn't know when you first picked it up. Note that some perks should be attainable through the game world ("tutors") or by studying (giving smart characters an advantage).

Hopefully getting rid of levels will make the game flow better, with less interruptions -- I certainly think that levels did more to make the Fallout game less enjoyable (especially the bethesda games -- but then those games are just annoying).

[Woolfe]

This has all come up previously.

Levels break games -- with levels instead of playing a desert ranger, you play a character who is leveled in a desert ranger fashion and instead of playing a field medic you just happen to have leveled your character to resemble a field medic. Essentially the problem is that levels require stopping the game to make choises which are, really, not essential to the game, the story or your character. Stats (and thus levels) only matter to players.

I disagree with you on this. Your comment about the field medic doesn't even make sense.

An alternative advancement system could be based on stat-use (skill, attribute, etc) -- when ever you use something, you get a chance to increase it (or get experience towards increasing it -- both are fine). This advancement system invites that experience is not shared, however this is not a given (if someone in the party shoots a gun, everybody can get experience towards shooting guns). This will make it difficult to gain Fallout style perks, however, this could be introduced "achievement"-style -- if you've fired a laser gun 2000 times, you've prolly found out a few tricks that you didn't know when you first picked it up. Note that some perks should be attainable through the game world ("tutors") or by studying (giving smart characters an advantage).

If you had read the forums or played the previous game, you would know that in WL, Skills improve through use. However both Skills and Attributes can be improved through leveling up.

Hopefully getting rid of levels will make the game flow better, with less interruptions -- I certainly think that levels did more to make the Fallout game less enjoyable (especially the bethesda games -- but then those games are just annoying).

I disagree with you here as well. I never found "leveling up" to be "annoying", indeed sometimes I would even look forward to it.
Please note this is NOT Fallout. The base systems whilst similar had a lot of differences.

Sorry for the Snarky reply, but why would a core system element be changed just to appease a concept that is not as one sided as you may believe.

[Drool]

with levels instead of playing a desert ranger, you play a character who is leveled in a desert ranger fashion and instead of playing a field medic you just happen to have leveled your character to resemble a field medic

I'm trying really hard to parse this, but it's just not clicking.

I don't understand what "leveled in a desert ranger fashion" even means, and how that's qualitatively different than playing a Desert Ranger. It's clear that you think there's something innately contaminating about levels, but I don't see why. Or how adding "level 5" to "Desert Ranger" makes the character... what? A poseur? A fake?

However, I agree with the point you raised in the thread title: no classes. In the original, your "class" was Desert Ranger. You decided your skill and stat distribution, but there were no classes. Not even the half-hearted classes like Oblivion had. Frankly, I think they're unnecessary as you've been trained as a Desert Ranger first, everything else is secondary.

[Gizmo]

I generally don't like an RPG without classes. Mechanics aside (for moment), a class represents their aspirations and past choices in life; their aptitudes and interests.

Something I really loathed in Elderscrolls was that the PC starts out as an adult infant with no past whatsoever ~there is no such thing as an adult without a past; aside from overly the used cliched amnesia... and that shouldn't stop there being others that knew them.

On the mechanics side... if you peer beneath the fiction (elf, wizard, rogue, bard...), the game should be offering specific mechanically different options for you to use in the game; each with both common and unique [balanced!] strengths and vulnerabilities.
IMO game developers seem to stray from this when they decide to make it a "free-for-all-do-whatever-you-want-just-please-buy-our-game" kind of a product. Most of those I've tried have been disappointments.

[Drool]

I generally don't like an RPG without classes. Mechanics aside (for moment), a class represents their aspirations and past choices in life; their aptitudes and interests.

Yes, but they aren't necessary, and I think they're more important in the fantasy genre than modern or PA genres. Wasteland had no classes, the Fallouts didn't really have classes either.

[Gizmo]

I generally don't like an RPG without classes. Mechanics aside (for moment), a class represents their aspirations and past choices in life; their aptitudes and interests.

Yes, but they aren't necessary, and I think they're more important in the fantasy genre than modern or PA genres. Wasteland had no classes, the Fallouts didn't really have classes either.

Aren't necessary ~in an RPG? Then what's the point?

In Wasteland they were all rangers; you can have varied specialists... in practice it's still the same; A couple are front-line fighters, maybe all of them, but that just means they are all fighter/mage/thief class.

In the fantasy setting, the guilds and esoteric arts certainly lend themselves to trade-skill classes, but it's the same in a modern day setting, you still have your auto-mechanics and your electricians and your jewel cutters. In the military you have you infantry and your fighter pilot.

In Fallout you were Vault Dweller Class. The skills were generalized; it was to be a single PC game. In Fallout you had a had the fixed history of being born institutionalized. It's not much of a class, but if you look at the default PCs they are absolutely setup as classes and the game responds to them. (It's surely not as strict as early D&D though).

[suz]

IMO "classes" only serve to limit the player's ability to customize character, why can't I be a sneaky thieving wizard? Perhaps I want to roleplay wizard academy dropout who's gone to the highway? But I can't because classes limit me to the character types designer thought about and filtering out any character type which doesn't fit into these 5-15 predefined types.

That's the reason the horrible disease of multiclass/prestige classes were brought in to RPGs. Classes don't ADD anything, they detract from the possible choices.

The point of an RPG is to roleplay a character, in any ruleset classes are present - you get less choice on characters you are able to roleplay. In WL2 if I want a medic who's also a minigun specialist I should be able to do it, because my character could happen to be a medic obsessed with firepower, and I chose to roleplay that.

[Drool]

If everyone is the same class, then you have effectively eliminated classes.

"Because when everybody's special... nobody is." -Syndrome

[SniperHF]

If there is a component that is common place in an RPG, someone is going to make a thread saying DON'T HAVE IT!

Kinda getting old.

The common pieces of RPG's over the years haven't been the problem, it's been their implementation.

[Mkoda]

Hey! Great! let's ditch stats and skills as well...and the save throw. Let's throw out everything roleplaying related and know what else we need to add? Cowbell. We really need more cowbell, we need to whip out some cowbell and really explore this idea...

Or we could just have a stat and skill based RPG. Guess what it's a game, immersion is going to be broken, total immersion shalt not ever happen. This search for a sensory deprivation chamber concealed within a CRPG has gotten stale. Heck, part of playing a CRPG is leveling, plotting out your characters, and personalizing them. That was the best part about games like Wasteland and the old D&D and Darksun franchises...you rolled your characters, you assigned skills, and all those cool little things like Thaco and Resistances, and the like came into play. It's micromanaging on a singular level and it is fortunately and hopefully here to motherfucking stay.

No classes? You never had a set class in WL. Your PCs were all rangers yes but it never shoehorned them into the roles of medic, sniper, demolitions, etc...it wasn't like an RPG variant of the old R6 games. You shoehorned your own damn characters, made them what you wanted, assigned them skills based on their IQ and the number of points to be distributed were determined by said IQ. It was a simple, easy to use, easy to understand system. Why reinvent the wheel when its been in use for thousands of years by dozens of cultures?

If you want to take the CRPGing out of CRPGing maybe you should try something other than a CRPG. If your character got stronger and the GUI announced it via floating text wouldn't that too break immersion? Relaly, I'm trying to understand the problem you're in search of that doesn't clearly exist...

[Woolfe]

If there is a component that is common place in an RPG, someone is going to make a thread saying DON'T HAVE IT!

Kinda getting old.

The common pieces of RPG's over the years haven't been the problem, it's been their implementation.

Booya!

Implementation is it. Sure there are flawed concepts as well, but generally it is poor implementation that makes it stick out in your mind.

I actually don't mind "Classes", but especially in the Fantasy realm, I find that they restrict for no good reason. Why wouldn't a wizard wield a sword. Why couldn't a Warrior be taught magic. etc etc

There would be some skills that are really "Class" specific. High level magic use in a fantasy setting, or High level IT network design in a Modern setting as examples. Most regular folk simply won't have the necessary access to learn those sort of skills. But a lot of things, how to pick a lock, or change the oil filter in your car, are things that can be taught and learned if you can find a teacher. So why should they be restricted.

For me, levels and classes are useful indicators of game concepts, but almost every implementation restricts them in ways that are simply not necessary.

[Drool]

Why wouldn't a wizard wield a sword. Why couldn't a Warrior be taught magic. etc etc

While I agree with the first (and some games let wizards do that, like Warhammer Fantasy), the second could be explained by magic being an innate ability that only some people have. Much like how some people can sing, and others couldn't find the right pitch with a road map and signal flares.

[suz]

While I agree with the first (and some games let wizards do that, like Warhammer Fantasy), the second could be explained by magic being an innate ability that only some people have. Much like how some people can sing, and others couldn't find the right pitch with a road map and signal flares.

Every nook, cranny and any event in any fiction can be "explained", the point isn't the explanation but in what way the restrictions imposed by "classes" improve the game - IMO other than some very dubious way to make up artificial "replayability" there's no real reason to have classes.

[Gizmo]

IMO "classes" only serve to limit the player's ability to customize character, why can't I be a sneaky thieving wizard?

Classes don't ADD anything, they detract from the possible choices.

Indeed that is the point of them.

All roleplaying is about restrictions; it's about what the character would and could accomplish with their personality and abilities; how they would personally react to the given situations and events. When you [for sake of example] roleplay as Gandalf, you should get a different experience than if you were roleplaying as Sauruman; or Gollum.

The point of an RPG is to roleplay a character, in any ruleset classes are present - you get less choice on characters you are able to roleplay. In WL2 if I want a medic who's also a minigun specialist I should be able to do it, because my character could happen to be a medic obsessed with firepower, and I chose to roleplay that.

Of course, that's by design. Each class serves a purpose and it's no different at it's core than are knights, bishops, and pawns. In a fantasy setting the wizard is effectively identical to the artillery unit in a modern war setting. You look and you see that the artillery unit is always a powerful area effect weapon at range, and very vulnerable up close; as with mages ~because they serve the same purpose. Medics serve the same mechanical job as priest/healers, and having one that carries a minigun does not serve the game rules; that's like having a pawn that also moves like knight, or a knight that can also 'en passant' or become Queen on the last rank ~this doesn't serve the game mechanics.

An RPG is also [ideally] not something the player should ever experience to the fullest with any one PC. The PC IS like a stencil or mask that restricts the player away from any content that is not appropriate for their PC ~this time through the game. Classes ensure this.

BTW, I haven't suggested that WL2 have any classes, just that I usually don't like RPGs that don't; certainly not party based ones.

Single PC RPGs usually have that inexplicable polymathic PC that can fight like Achilles, cast spells like Merlin, and give Fagin pickpocketing lessons. It's absurd IMO ~always has been; I usually find it annoying.

[snakeoil]

even though i dont understand in which way a stats based system is in any way diffrent to a level system (since levelling is always based on stats), i think a RPG even a CRPG does not necessarily need a level or skill system. in fact estimating your role played characters development by numbers is fundamentally wrong in times with the graphical possibilities nowadays. if you have a character that uses a skill often, the right way to display it would be having diffrent constantly advancing animations, a faster ability speed, a better execution or more choices when using the skill (everything levelling does anyway in games, just without the number)
a system that uses this system would be extremely satisfying without breaking immersion by abstract data that has no reference in real live.
classes imo are useless anyway since every human in a post apocalyptic world has to be a swiss army knife. as if anyone would be unable to use a rocket launcher or assault rifle just because you know how to pick a lock...

[Hasenklein]

Levels break games -- with levels instead of playing a desert ranger, you play a character who is leveled in a desert ranger fashion and instead of playing a field medic you just happen to have leveled your character to resemble a field medic. Essentially the problem is that levels require stopping the game to make choises which are, really, not essential to the game, the story or your character. Stats (and thus levels) only matter to players.

An alternative advancement system could be based on stat-use (skill, attribute, etc) -- when ever you use something, you get a chance to increase it (or get experience towards increasing it -- both are fine).

Wasteland had the system you suggested. Usually, it resulted in actions that aimed on raising the skill levels (key words: Brother Goliath, Sand Dunes, Auto Laser Canon, Scorpitron). By the definition of the problem you give, your solution wouldn't change anything.

[Gizmo]

even though i dont understand in which way a stats based system is in any way diffrent to a level system (since levelling is always based on stats), i think a RPG even a CRPG does not necessarily need a level or skill system.

This is true, and there are pen & paper RPGs that don't use leveling for PCs...

in fact estimating your role played characters development by numbers is fundamentally wrong in times with the graphical possibilities nowadays.

But I don't understand this; I don't understand the aversion some have for numbers, or what use a purely graphical option really has, or why for some that it would be preferable.

if you have a character that uses a skill often, the right way to display it would be having diffrent constantly advancing animations, a faster ability speed, a better execution or more choices when using the skill (everything levelling does anyway in games, just without the number)

I fully agree with including additional animations ~they are neat; they aren't needed IMO, but the look neat and impart the extra action; there is no harm done, so long as they don't cause a headache by drawing out the time it takes to accomplish anything; and/or becoming monotonous due to over use during play. There is a real art to creating sounds and graphics that can be used very often in the game, and yet not be irritating in the long term.

a system that uses this system would be extremely satisfying without breaking immersion by abstract data that has no reference in real live.

I don't see the need ~seriously, I don't understand why it's an issue at all ~ I can see why some players might want the HUD reduced in a shooter (because it blocks parts of the screen and the health & ammo count (and little Doom face ) can distract the eye); but I've no clue why this might matter in a top-down RPG.

classes imo are useless anyway since every human in a post apocalyptic world has to be a swiss army knife. as if anyone would be unable to use a rocket launcher or assault rifle just because you know how to pick a lock...

That's not what it means; it means that the guy that spent his time being trained to survive using the rocket launcher (and possibly hit targets with it), was not spending his days away from the firing range, taking apart locks and learning the details of manipulating their inner workings though a tiny slot in the front... and vice versa.

It also means that the person's passion is for their selected vocation, and they don't really want to bother with something so utterly foreign to them; or perhaps just can't / they lack the aptitude, the patience. Conan will never waste his time with wizard scrolls and snake entrails ~"let wizards be wizards and Conan be Conan". There is then the fact that the mechanical framework of the game (under the hood) should have a set of pros & cons for each and every supported 'class'. All too often players demand only the pros and resent any cons ~actually resent them personally. There needs to be a "clockwork" system of tightly knit rules to govern the Game aspect of the Game ~else it devolves into mindless sandboxing.

Not everyone wants to play a 1:1 'stream of consciousness' simulation; especially in a long in depth RPG that takes weeks to complete. Games about life need to be abstracted or they are most often a chore. You wouldn't like Monopoly if you had to deal with building permits and liability lawsuits or tenants destroying the walls and carpets of your rental properties.

[tuluse]

Why wouldn't a wizard wield a sword. Why couldn't a Warrior be taught magic. etc etc

While I agree with the first (and some games let wizards do that, like Warhammer Fantasy), the second could be explained by magic being an innate ability that only some people have. Much like how some people can sing, and others couldn't find the right pitch with a road map and signal flares.

If the game lets you make a wizard, why do you have to be a wizard from the beginning? Why can't you "discover" that you had magic ability all along but didn't realize it.

[tuluse]

The only RPG I can think of that didn't use levels but still had a deep character system was VtM:B.

However, I think they were only able to do that because it was a more linear game. It was much easier to judge reward in that case as opposed to an open world like Wasteland.

[GodComplex]

The only RPG I can think of that didn't use levels but still had a deep character system was VtM:B.

However, I think they were only able to do that because it was a more linear game. It was much easier to judge reward in that case as opposed to an open world like Wasteland.

Shadowrun and Exalted got away sans leveling in the true sense. They just let you dump experience points into your stats directly.

I actually take no issue with classes per se. What I hated was the gear archetype. You should be able to equip anything with the accompanying bonuses and penalties. I loved the way Silent Storm did classes. Everyone had the same skills and could use any equipment. Want your stealther to sneak a bazooka to the front lines, go for it. Want your medic to hold the back line with grenades and a machine gun, great! But each class was better than others at a few tasks, so I guess it's not so much classes as specialists.

Anyhow, Wasteland could do it. And it would be a hoot. Go through the game once as a pack of brawlers or a group of medics with rocket launchers. Go hardcore and have no medics. But again, I think there was a thread or twenty dealing with specialization.