Well its an interesting idea, I just dont see it working though. In Necrotech, you must fire a gun about a hundred times before you reach level 5, yet I cant think of anything else you do that often. So it seems to me that you would end up with super-accurate characters who are rubbish at everything else.

Spectre Software - RPGs, strategy, puzzle games, programming

What about a game with non-linear character progression based on player macro generation?

Personally, I prefer the Fallout series. All your skills start very low, but every level, you can either improve one about 30%, or spread it out across various skills. The skill points you gain in Fallout aren''t overly massive, but that''s why every 3rd level you got a perk, that let you do some different things that were kinda cool. (Examples: Sneaking while running, not having to worry about size when stealing things, gaining an ability point, etc.)

Personally, that was my favorite system of advancement I''ve ever played with.

Oh yeah, MarioRPG had a system of occasionaly levels with big payouts, and then on top of that let you choose what you prefered getting a better bonus than the rest.

-> Will Bubel
-> Machine wash cold, tumble dry.

Final Fantasy X. ''nuff said.

i suggest having more than one set of levels to raise, and have the advancement sometimes incrementally, sometimes in infrequent leaps, with the balance at the player''s discression.

eg you increase your hand-to-hand combat by paying somone to train you, the speed of this this depends upon how much cash you can spare; when you complete a task you get a new weapon; you increase speed and stamina by running a lot;

this shows you could advance by sacrifice or possessions, completed goals and sustained practice. your motivation for balancing could go like "if i run i may enter a fight exhausted. if i save i may buy the sword and avoid that sub-quest"

Two sets of levels. I just remembered Dragon Warrior VII for the PSX. Job levels increase to give you skills, character levels increase to give you HP, Strength bonuses, etc.

That may work better, because the Job levels in that game are hard to attain, but character levels are fairly easy to get.

That reminds me a bit of a pen & paper rpg called Warhammer from years back - character classes were careers in that, and careers affected what attributes can go up and by how much. Sounds bizarre, but thats how it worked.

Spectre Software - RPGs, strategy, puzzle games, programming

I am surprised I didn''t see many people saying, "there shouldn''t be levels" and the such. I go against this mainly because you actually have levels(some don''t, most do) but try your hardest to hide them. Levels are almost necessary, especially for an rpg. I have heard people speak of "skill-based" rpgs where you have a low limit on stats(all of them added can''t be above 50), but its weird to do stuff like that. Anyhow, The game I am making uses the actual experience you gain as your level. There are of course other "levels" within those, at which you gain stuff, but every single xp point you have makes you stronger.

I also must go against the idea of "gaining what you do in stats/skills", unless such a system allows for several ways to train such things. Dragon seed was an excellent game, but the only way I could increase my speed was to fight, and during the fight run... there might have been one other way, but it wasn''t as effective(really uneffective). Since there are millions of ways to increase my speed/agility(which I needed to dodge), but because of the unbalance of fun in the way I gained it, it decreased the value of the game. Personally in my game, you can train your stats the way you want them, and when you increase your xp, you gain more power the way your body is built(say Fighter A is strong, and slow... every level he gains 5 strength and 1 speed... but he gets to choose how he wants to be, he could be weak and fast(on a side note, I always put my highest score into dex in dnd, no matter the class) and level that way... including changing his form(although hard) midgame...

Well I think I bored you enough.

Summary: Levels are good, balance is good. The best method is to test your game a couple times, each time trying to 1). Rush through it 2). Level-up too much 3). Normally go through(by normally I mean without taking too much time rushing, or fighting)

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

quote: I am surprised I didn''t see many people saying, "there shouldn''t be levels" and the such.

My biggest problem isn''t levels... it''s level caps. Sure, I can see that people will hit a career high, that they will hit a point where they won''t necessarily be able to get any better, but what I can''t accept is that everyone''s is anywhere near the same. Level 20 (NWN right now), Level 50 (DAoC), Level 60 (EQ). It''s too absolute and arbitrary.

I can almost see it in D&D, because it really does (or at least in any game that I played) take forever to get past the teens, every level can take upwards of a year or so unless your GM is named Monty (Haul, not Python). But online games that have a game/real day ratio of 4/1? So you play the game for 3 REAL years... that means that your warrior is 28-30 years old (human)... not close to the point where someone really needs to retire, he''s got another 4-6 years before he should retire (become a landed lord), but even then the lords continue to be in good shape and stay combat ready, mattering on their lands. Magician? He''s just getting his stride. He''s learned a boatload up to that point in time and now he''s starting to actually figure out how to put it all to use. How can you cap him so early in his actual career?

I''m opting for a skill based system with no real caps. Sure, there is a technical cap, but it''s well beyond what would be practical to obtain over the course of 3 years (i.e. without playing 16 hours a day for 3 years).