Get rid of levels (and do not have classes)

[Mkoda]

Look, I don't see why we need to "animate" stat or ability increases. For one it seems gimmicky and I'm pretty down of gimmicks as a rule...plus, "WOW! Look at that cool animation!" Is immersion breaking too. Everyone thinks they have the next great idea for an RPG, Shooter, Adventure Game, etc.

"We'll make it statless!" IE Skyrim. Well, as I recall the system in Daggerfall was damn near perfect as far as I was concerned. Yes, they could have consolidated a stat or skill here, removed on there, but it was a deep leveling system. Skills went up with use, each level you earned a rolled number of points to up your attributes like strength. You had classes but you could build a custom class. Face it, even Skyrim forces you to specialize, so did Fable. Specialization happens, it's a reality. It's why we have medics in the infantry. Sure, most of us are combat lifesaver qualified but at the end of the day I want someone with six months of training trying to save my narrow ass.

"We can make it classless!" Hardly new, already been done, and even then you fall into a lot of the same tropes. The brawler, the talker, the thief, the warrior, the ranged expert, the medic. Removing classes is fine by me but it just imposes limits early on. With a classless system you tend to set your own limits. Though WL never had classes so I can't see how this is an issue.

I would like to point out that the Rangers would be your faction rather than your class. If you're a Free Mason does that make you only a Free Mason? I'm a member of the VFW and the American Legion, the NRA, and I was part of a big brothers type program in high school. These are not occupations, which is essentially what a class would be, but affiliations. It's not like an MOS designation in the service, it's not a specialization, it's merely an organization that you serve.

[tuluse]

"We can make it classless!" Hardly new, already been done, and even then you fall into a lot of the same tropes. The brawler, the talker, the thief, the warrior, the ranged expert, the medic. Removing classes is fine by me but it just imposes limits early on. With a classless system you tend to set your own limits. Though WL never had classes so I can't see how this is an issue.

This really depends on the person playing it.

Sure in Fallout 1/2 I usually made my small guns high charisma character because that's what I enjoy playing, but what class would that be?

What about the character I made who specialized in throwing?

Or the one with 10 luck and jinxed and finesse designed to max out criticals in every encounter? This is when I learned luck influences more than I thought in Fallout 2, I got a ton of really cool random encounters.

[Gizmo]

This is when I learned luck influences more than I thought in Fallout 2, I got a ton of really cool random encounters.

Luck (in addition to critical hit chance) influences any other random number for the PC; anything in the way of a virtual die roll.

[tuluse]

This is when I learned luck influences more than I thought in Fallout 2, I got a ton of really cool random encounters.

Luck (in addition to critical hit chance) influences any other random number for the PC; anything in the way of a virtual die roll.

I understood this intellectually, but when I actually experienced it, I had a "whoa" moment. When you've played the game 2.5 times or so, you figure you've seen most if not all of the special random encounters. With 10 luck though, I had found a ton more.

[Mkoda]

This is when I learned luck influences more than I thought in Fallout 2, I got a ton of really cool random encounters.

Luck (in addition to critical hit chance) influences any other random number for the PC; anything in the way of a virtual die roll.

I'll agree, you have a point. You can go pretty out of bounds with some systems but most of us fall into the same tropes.

Me? I'm a gun guy. Grew up shooting, raised by a soldier whose father had been a member of the 5th Army Rifle and Pistol team FT Mammoth NJ. Later I became an infantryman. I'm by nature attuned to think of small arms a the way to go, so I naturally gravitated towards small guns. My emphasis on agility and perception, marksmanship and well placed shots winning the day.

I had to force myself to try out melee, big guns, energy weapons, and unarmed. I found all of these rewarding but I generally have small guns, barter, stealth/lockpicking/or repair as my go to skills. I did begin to play around after my third playthrough. A melee centered survivalist, a slick talking hustler who liked energy weapons. A chem addicted scientific genius who liked grenades...lots of grenades. I admit I went pretty wild and found I liked to try new things but it took some doing. I actually bullshitted my way through much of Fallout 3 on my first playthrough. I made my character as non-combat centric as I could and ofund it a challenging/rewarding experience.

Still, even the wildest combinations were backed by stats and skills. They all had limitations. The chem dependent scientist who popper mentats like skittles wasn't going to bust down the door with a rocket launcher or slug it out with a super mutant...I had Tycho and Ian for that, if they could manage to not shoot each other or me. Leveling gave me a chance to increase skills, and flesh out the character.

[tuluse]

Ok, I don't think anyone is suggesting removing stat limitations.

The idea with no classes is that you're free to make your own classes. The argument that there is no point because people will simply use common tropes anyways is pointless.

[Zombra]

I'm not a fan of levels; I prefer less "digital" character improvement. There are plenty of levelless systems that do just fine, and give you smaller rewards more often. A skill point here and there, maybe a new maneuver after you've stabbed x number of guys; it makes me feel more involved with my character when they learn by doing instead of by amassing abstract "points", you know?

That said, Wasteland's system was fine. Skills increased through use and stats increased periodically when you radioed in a certain amount of accomplishments. I don't expect anything super radical in W2, nor is it necessary in my opinion.

[Gizmo]

The idea with no classes is that you're free to make your own classes. The argument that there is no point because people will simply use common tropes anyways is pointless.

This really shouldn't be the point IMO... Classes create game pieces. They can be quite literally creating knights, rooks & bishops; each with their own abilities, and not shared. Each with their own differing game-play experience. What I commonly see in RPG game forums is players demanding Queen-like characters that have whatever strikes their fancy and makes them feel empowered. "Why can't my Medic have a mingun and a jetpack", "Why can't my wizard also be a ninja and fight with a talking magic scythe?"

These are valid imagined characters to be sure, but how do they benefit the game? In Chess, the gameplay would be ruined if every piece was a queen. In RPGs the gameplay would be ruined [IMO] if every character is a sword & shield carrying spellcaster/locksmith that can sneak like a ninja. ~Or if every Ranger is a copy of every other in your party except for hair color.

I would want specialists in WL2. In WL2 the PCs will all be the same class ~rangers; but they should all have elective specialties that the others are not equally competent in... To use a risky example: it should almost (but not quite) be entirely unlike Team Fortress. In this case... meaning that once the PCs are created, they tend to have specific aptitudes that make them more suited to specific tasks. The big guy is the one to use the minigun ~not the scout etc...

[Drool]

The characters in Team Fortress 2 aren't all the same class with specializations. It's a series of classes. Scout class. Spy class. Heavy class. That's like saying there's only the "adventurer" class in D&D and all that warrior, thief, paladin, mage stuff was "specialization".

Wasteland had no classes. You can say everyone was "Ranger class", but that's just arguing semantics. If you wanted a specialist, you gave a dude 2 points in a skill nobody else had. Boom. Specialist.

[Gizmo]

The characters in Team Fortress 2 aren't all the same class with specializations. It's a series of classes. Scout class. Spy class. Heavy class. That's like saying there's only the "adventurer" class in D&D and all that warrior, thief, paladin, mage stuff was "specialization".

Wasteland had no classes. You can say everyone was "Ranger class", but that's just arguing semantics. If you wanted a specialist, you gave a dude 2 points in a skill nobody else had. Boom. Specialist.

Yeah... that's not what was implied; that's not semantics. 'Giving a dude 2 points in a skill nobody else had.. boom specialist' was implied, but I'm hoping for PC aptitudes that would make leaning towards certain specialties advantageous.

Really the game Throne of Darkness comes to mind. In that game all of the PCs were fighters, but they each had some unique qualities that were simply not an option for the other PCs.

[Zombra]

Eh. In games like Throne of Darkness, I am more likely to pick a character because they look cool, not because they can do what I want them to.

I prefer "builds" to outright classes. You can make some combinations of abilities more synergistic than others; that's fine. You can make a split design prohibitively expensive or inefficient; that's also fine. But to outright prevent a mage from swinging a sword is stupid. One zebra's opinion.

[Gizmo]

But to outright prevent a mage from swinging a sword is stupid. One zebra's opinion.

It depends on how one views the game (I'd think). I like the enemy wizards in Witcher, and Gandalf swings a sword, but Classes are game archetypes; they don't have to match everyone's individual fiction. A wizard in a game can be restricted from using a sword if the sword is a prime reason for playing a different class. ~and vice versa... A fighter can be restricted from learning spells ~even if only because it's inconvenient and overpowering.
You make up the reasons to suit, but the underlying point is so that you weaken the other options. The RPG [game engine] can handle a sword swinging, spell casting; Lich, lycanthrope, master thief... but that doesn't mean they should ever allow that to be played as the PC IMO.

[Zombra]

The RPG [game engine] can handle a sword swinging, spell casting; Lich, lycanthrope, master thief... but that doesn't mean they should ever allow that to be played as the PC IMO.

I agree; I just think that it can be done much more interestingly than "Don't touch that chain mail, NOT ALLOWED." Make a system that rewards a tight concept and makes it hard to advance in multiple "elite" skills. Something as simple as making every rank in a skill cost twice as much as the last is an obvious way to do this. Or offer "cost breaks" for grouped skills; if you already know how to swing a sword, it's cheaper to learn how to swing an axe. It's basically the same thing but without ham-handed road blocks; you could have a master mage who knew how to pick locks, but that wouldn't mean you could have every skill at maximum level.

[Woolfe]

Yeah, but it is all about give and take.

Compare 2 Wizards with the same stats and same experience. Wiz 1 decides to learn how to wield a sword. Wiz 2 keeps on with the Magic learning.

Which one is better at Magic?

So the only way a player is going to end up at Queen level is because he is super duper experienced and has maxed out the other areas.

Those people should in theory be rare, because to get to that point involves a lot of life experience. Especially in a combat based game.

I like playeing Jack of all trades, Master of none, characters. Does it get me into trouble sometimes... Sure, but when combined with specialists the Jacks become the glue that hold the team together. Doc down, thats ok the Jack can fix him up with Medic. Main Tank down, right Jack time to take some hits whilst Doc gets Tank back up and operational. Rogue incapacitated, and you need some to sneak into a place and pinch some drugs. Well Jack has the next best chance.

Someone getting Chatty, but the main Speaker says the wrong thing, lucky Jack is here.

[crossfirex]

You mean like perks that allow you to select your role past the skills themselves? Fallout style games from Interplay always had that. Even with the levels and stats.

[Ormagöden]

So you want a party of Bards?

[Shaewaros]

Levels are definitely a part of old-school PC RPGs, I definitely support having levels in Wasteland 2 - it all part of the nostalgia trip. The original Wasteland didn't have classes so I don't see why they would have to be in WL2 either.

[Kjaamor]

I'd imagine that Fargo et al have a fairly good idea of what they're going to do here; it is, after all, one of Black Isle's specialities.

Personally, I like levels in my RPGs and I like classes - though I certainly won't be packing my bags and leaving if Wasteland 2 has neither.

I am in complete opposition to the OP's suggestion that levelling up breaks the gaming experience. For me, the reward of the level is one of the biggest carrots on a stick to the entire western RPG gameplay. I appreciate it's unrealistic and somewhat stupid as a simulation device, but as a piece of gameplay it works fantastically. Levelling up in Fallout or Baldur's Gate was a huge thing that was very significant.

In contrast, the skill development system displayed by, say, Morrowind, was more realistic but painfully dull and devoid of any sense of reward. The difference between 32 Divination and 33 Divination was so minor as to provide no sense of value to each boost.

The other beauty of including a level system (whether in isolation or accompanying the skill points system) is that it removes the neccesity to engage in mundane gameplay experiences in order for the player to progress. Memories of continuously jumping up hills in Morrowind for hours at a time. Realism should not take priority over a good gameplay experience.