This is a concept that I have been mulling around in my head for a while and it's pretty much how a lot of games seem to want to work but the designers haven't figured this out. The concept is to more or less supposed to facilitate infinite growth so a player could hypothetically jump into "end game content" while at the same time "starting game content" could still pose a challenge for the experienced player, thus both groups could play with each other without problem.

#1. Leveling as in "raising stats" is completely removed.
#2. Stats have a minimum and maximum they can be and are raised and lowered by various other factors, based mainly on player usage and/or skills.
#3. Skills and Armor take primacy. You learn/collect skills and armor and are better able to handle things because you have better tools.
#4. The focus on armor and skills allows for more depth of play because it allows a dev to create weapons/skills that are more/less effective in various situations.

This is a better method for games because it allows infinite growth potential in every area of development.
Social growth because more players can interact
World growth because more players can experience all areas of play as they are meant to be at any experience level
player growth because it takes away a finish point, but keeps the addictive "getting better" part
Customization... A player may make a character how they want rather than in any cookie cutter fashion and still be useful regardless of skills
Item growth... often times when items are made they are for certain levels or classes and only if you are those levels or classes are they important to you, but with this system every item means more depth and more possible combinations you can have or have to plan against.


As I mentioned a lot of games use a weak horizontal growth after vertical growth or during vertical growth, but because they rely mainly on the vertical growth this becomes dull and most players start to be able to point out that you aren't really improving so much as you are doing the same thing over and over to be able to do the same thing over and over easier until the next vertical growth period comes along. With this you focus on the horizontal growth and you are then free from many of the problems of balancing new mobs, creating 70 new items that are only useful to 1% of your populous, and encourage growth by player innovation which keeps the game fresh while also giving players a reason to explore new areas and work with new people which allows you to get a better retention of new and old players.

I think it's a simpler more effective system of brainwashing the masses...what say you?

Hi there,  

First and foremost, I like what you're trying to do here. Personally I feel that too many RPGs subscribe to only one system of levelling (DnD derivatives), and quite frankly as a storytelling genre it has so much potential to explore. 

Having said that, I'm not sure I fully understand. Regarding stats, you claim that the concept of improving them is removed - and yet, items can increase or decrease stats? What then is the role of stats exactly? Do they fluctuate based on current skills and items, or do are they permanently affected? More importantly, what then is the relationship between stats, items and skills? Will a higher stat improve the effectiveness of a given item or skill?  I think it would help if you illustrated these concepts with an example - what exactly is the interaction between stats, items and skills from a practical standpoint?   Based on my current understanding of this system, it's great to pull out of current paradigm of levels, and yes it sounds as though it would free up many other possibilities somewhat.

However, there is one major problem I'm seeing right now: are items and skills progressively better, or merely different? Having players of varying levels (I mean practically, not numerically) interacting is great, but how does that work exactly? Much of the fun of RPGs is in improving, and part of improving is having the capability of exploring more dangerous regions and facing more challenging opponents. In other words, the somewhat clearly defined goal of improvement is paramount, as it is a primary driving force behind RPGs. If you take that away, you enforce a kind of communism (gasp) which derails the experience somewhat - that is, unless it's replaced with something else. Note that I'm not saying this is the case in your idea, rather that I see it as a potential pitfall.

I'd love to hear more about this idea before discussing it further...

I tried to image how true horizontal leveling would look -- Wouldn't it be just changing roles? I mean, horizontal lines basically make each person equall. Unless the game is ultra ballanced in so that it doesn't matter if you play a tank or berserker, it would always have a minor vertical advancement. Just my PoV, not trying to be critical here.

As I was fiddling with the horizontal line, something strange happened in my head -- the line bent and changed into a circle. Now wouldn't that be an interesting concept? (probably seen somewhere befeore) Now imagine this circle. Put character classes inside it, such as mage, tank, DD. Now the players may choose equipment and skills that will make them move within this space, within the circle. No stats need to be altered - a person playing a mage could just as well become a tank should he stop wearing pyjamas and equip a heavy plate. The world would ofc be equipped with a story to make it logical - like, this is the Underworld, and you are a fallen spirit. Your mission is to prepare for Ragnarok, escape, reincarnate or whatever. As the player/spirit you become what you wear -- mage robes, imbued with powerfull memories, make you attuned to the flow of mana. Heavy armor, bearing blood sweat and tears, empowers you to become an un-living tank. And so on.

Now when we stop looking at the circle from an eagle's perspective and look at it from the side, it will more or less look like a bunch of hills, unless ballanced as I mentioned above. But I think that leaving it with some asymmetric balancing would improve the system. Ranged will be superior to melee no matter how hard you try if you are away from the target. But making it feel at least remotelly fair is what makes a game great.

So I guess it is not a problem of whether it is horizontal, vertical or circular progression -- it's about making the game fair. Vertical progression seems downright unfair as it enables a player to be superior at all times due to level difference. But on the same character levels ballance can be seen. Horizontal progression just demands a different type of evening the chances.

Hi there,

First and foremost, I like what you're trying to do here. Personally I feel that too many RPGs subscribe to only one system of levelling (DnD derivatives), and quite frankly as a storytelling genre it has so much potential to explore.

Having said that, I'm not sure I fully understand. Regarding stats, you claim that the concept of improving them is removed - and yet, items can increase or decrease stats? What then is the role of stats exactly? Do they fluctuate based on current skills and items, or do are they permanently affected? More importantly, what then is the relationship between stats, items and skills? Will a higher stat improve the effectiveness of a given item or skill? I think it would help if you illustrated these concepts with an example - what exactly is the interaction between stats, items and skills from a practical standpoint? Based on my current understanding of this system, it's great to pull out of current paradigm of levels, and yes it sounds as though it would free up many other possibilities somewhat.

Let's say there is a "strength" stat. Humans have a maximum strength, but each individual strength is different and can change, the effectiveness of this strength can be modified by how one uses it and can be increased by various technologies.

For example
a wild punch from the strongest person in the world is probably less effective than the punch of the weakest person in the world who is a master of boxing.
There are various forms in boxing and you could have the player train up to master each of these forms, like an upper cut or a jab. Some of these skills would be innately added to the combat style of the player's character (like a jab) while others would have to triggered (like an upper cut). You could further increase this type of play by adding that the more you master a skill of say an uppercut the more places and more ability you have to land it so you could open up a sub-skill menu that allows you to choose a body uppercut, a standard jaw upper cut, or something like the shinryuken. Further you could also over lay this with a targetting or timing system like Legend of Dragoon so that the more a player uses it the more practice they get at it and thus the player and character together become more skilled thus effectively delivering more from the same thing.
Further more a person who has mastered all the skills of boxing is probably more effectively able to use all of them so you could have a Boxing mastery skill that the higher that gets the better you become at that.

The player's "strength" stat would be used in some sort of formula to with the skill multiplier/level and would increase the amount of damage they can do, but their base stat remains unchanged.

However, the strength stat may change based on the skills one learns and how they are used. Why? Because improving yourself isn't linear and picking up other skills in the real world can often lead you to having to change something else... for example... a power lifter who would have max strength, even if they are a master archer in skill would be less effective with a long bow than another master archer because muscles gets in the way of how one can hold the bow...so they'd have to lose strength to be more effective which you''d have to do in some way of setting an effectiveness level where if your character isn't at peak proficiency in a skill when they use it the skill would lower or raise it over time to that proficiency level. And jut because it might not be understood...someone with low strength would also have their strength raised, because it takes a lot of strength to pull a long bow so over a period of time of usage the character would get stronger.

so the stats are important be higher doesn't necessarily mean better... You'd have to work a way to say this stat is not proficient, should we lower it or raise it... is there a better stat to lower or raise... maybe that could be random, or be based on the type of skills... like if you use rapid fire a lot you lose strength to gain or preserve speed or if you use a long draw shot you'd gain/preserve strength, but lose speed to the proficient amount.

So to answer your question
Stats are a measurement of your physical abilities which can be permanently modified by the skills you learn and how you use them
Skills are your ability to perform actions and how good you are at them (or in game lingo, how much of a modifier is applied to the base stats)


Equipment and items, depending on the scenario would modify your stats for as long as those items and equipments are able to effect your character.

For example, clothing would slow your character down... the heavier the clothing the slower the character could move (obviously the exact amount of speed reduced would be determined by several factors) Is this a permanent effect? Well you can take off clothes so no... but as long as you have them on yes. Everything in this way is technically temporary. You could wear an exo-skeleton and gain immense strength without losing speed and this would be in effect till the exosuit is no longer able to give you this ability. You could take a potion and increase your speed and this would be in effect for as long as the potion says so. Is this a permanent change? if the potion says it is, why not?

Think of it like the real world or even the comic world. Spiderman got bit by a radioactive spider to get his powers...are they permanent or temporary? they can be taken away.
And does it make a difference that the effect makes him stronger than a human can be? No it's because the technology or the mutation or thee sell effected the character in such a way that their abilities changed either their base stats or their equipped stats.. I personally always figured that if you took a potion to increase your strength or speed that the effects would have a permanent effect on your body so if you took a potion that increased your strength +100...well i would think that after 10-20 uses of that potion you'd gain at least a tiny bit more muscle mass than what you originally had if you used them fairly often, depending on how the potion worked...but then i'd also think that permanent minor change could only be used to get yo to max human ability and not superhuman ability... but then that would also effect the spell too because if you started at 50% of human max, and the +100 took you to 150% human max then after a while you'd end up being 100% human max and with the potion 200% human max...



So basically what i am saying is these basic stats would have complex interactions with various formulas to determine the damage done and what would b needed to make the user more proficient in the actions they are being used in.

However, there is one major problem I'm seeing right now: are items and skills progressively better, or merely different? Having players of varying levels (I mean practically, not numerically) interacting is great, but how does that work exactly? Much of the fun of RPGs is in improving, and part of improving is having the capability of exploring more dangerous regions and facing more challenging opponents. In other words, the somewhat clearly defined goal of improvement is paramount, as it is a primary driving force behind RPGs. If you take that away, you enforce a kind of communism (gasp) which derails the experience somewhat - that is, unless it's replaced with something else. Note that I'm not saying this is the case in your idea, rather that I see it as a potential pitfall.

I'd love to hear more about this idea before discussing it further...
[/quote]

that's simple...
Some skills are needed to get to other skills... for example... any "combo" you master parts of it and thus when you are able to do the entire combination the whole is more effective than the parts... but sometimes it is better to do different parts so you would have access to both the full combo and the individual skills.
Different skills also have different usages for different situations. That's the whole premise of martial arts and why we have different armors out there. Some weapons and skills are good at slashing while others are better at piercing and others are good for just plain blunt damage.

If I take a broad sword and slam it across the body of a knight I'm going to get a minimal reaction
If I take that same sword and stab it into the armor I'm going to pierce it
if i take the same sword again and I'm probably not going to get any reaction
If i take the sword and slam it int the knight and then stab him I'm likely going to get the best reaction

So when you switch to this system you would have to add depth of play by adding combo attack system, more readily accessible status modifiers, and types of damage

How does this answer your question?
The more experienced player would have access to more skills and know how to use them (or should know)

That knight is going to be far harder to beat as new player than they are as an experienced player because as an experienced player I would theoretically be able to do a shield charge, hit him with the pommel of the sword, slash the back of the knight and then stab into him in a chain of actions that would stun and control the knight to the point i could get a super effective blow while a new player would either not know how to do that or not have the skills to do that or not have the skills to effectively do it.

It's not necessarily the case that an experienced players has those skills, or has them mastered, or carries a sword on them, or even knows how those skills work. While at the same time a new player could know those skills, have some or all of them mastered, carries a sword, and knows how it works. It's just an experienced players is more likely to... and a game should reward knowledge, experience, skill, and preparedness even though you can't prepare for every situation...

Here's an example... you have an experienced player and he just took down this knight... and a few seconds later a dragon comes swooping... but decides to keep flying. This awesome player that just swiftly took down the knight now can do nothing... Of course dragons are harder to beat so there's nothing wrong with that... but let's say he's with a new player. who is working on master long shot with a bow... or ice lance magic.... guess who is the better person to be in this case? The new player, the One skill newb would be far superior to this 5+master skill players in this situation and the situation is more difficult...


Then we come into a point where, well you said growth is infinite... and this is true... so aren't you worried about mage warriors or whatever they're called? And to this i say nope ^.^ Think about it. There will be some people that try and some people that will just like to use this or that spell to help them in some way but the pure fact is because when you use a skill it messes with your stats, even if you were to master every skill in the game you'd still want to stay primarily to a build that you're going to use effectively. ie if you have an archer you're not going to want to have huge amount of armor and you're probably not going to try to use a heavy axe to kill anything... like wise if you are a knight you probably aren't going to use much magic because because it's going to take away from you having those really effective combos and you are a mage you probably won't want to forego learning total oblivion lvl 9001 or decrease it's effectiveness just to be able to slap a dragon... I mean I would, but I'm crazy... and even if you do not everyone is going to have the same effectiveness with them or the same ones and you got to prepare for the crazies so that too would just add more depth to the game... those people would force the other players and the devs to up their ability, not diminish it.


I hope that answers your questions...

Isn't changing stats vertical advancement that just isn't leveling? The moment I get a skill others cannot due to strenght limitations or whatnot, I see that as a vertical advancement -- I am above others, I am better, I made progress. Customization is a cool thing, but some or even most players will go for a dominant strategy if given the occasion and resources (as in knowledge how to do it etc.).

I tried to image how true horizontal leveling would look -- Wouldn't it be just changing roles? I mean, horizontal lines basically make each person equall. Unless the game is ultra ballanced in so that it doesn't matter if you play a tank or berserker, it would always have a minor vertical advancement. Just my PoV, not trying to be critical here.

An older player would theoretically be vertically superior to a new player by way of having skills that have levels and because an older player would likely have more resources to get things, but as seen in the example above a players being new doesn't mean they are not able to contribute or succeed verses an older player. Two players of equal skill one older and one newer and on the same path the older player would be better, if we randomize the skill level of the players and put them into learning different skills and such the two can give each other a decent challenge. Even with the same stuff there is always luck that could tip the odds of the newer player winning and that more or less can't happen on any other game system

As I was fiddling with the horizontal line, something strange happened in my head -- the line bent and changed into a circle. Now wouldn't that be an interesting concept? (probably seen somewhere befeore) Now imagine this circle. Put character classes inside it, such as mage, tank, DD. Now the players may choose equipment and skills that will make them move within this space, within the circle. No stats need to be altered - a person playing a mage could just as well become a tank should he stop wearing pyjamas and equip a heavy plate. The world would ofc be equipped with a story to make it logical - like, this is the Underworld, and you are a fallen spirit. Your mission is to prepare for Ragnarok, escape, reincarnate or whatever. As the player/spirit you become what you wear -- mage robes, imbued with powerfull memories, make you attuned to the flow of mana. Heavy armor, bearing blood sweat and tears, empowers you to become an un-living tank. And so on.
[/quote]

Its better than the straight line vertical growth model, but fails in the customization model and adding as much depth depth...as well as allowing for those other benefits i mentioned like a new player and an old player being able to experience the same content whenever the same way.

So I guess it is not a problem of whether it is horizontal, vertical or circular progression -- it's about making the game fair. Vertical progression seems downright unfair as it enables a player to be superior at all times due to level difference. But on the same character levels ballance can be seen. Horizontal progression just demands a different type of evening the chances.
[/quote]

Nyah, fairness is secondary... I'm more about expanding depth, customization, and the problem of developers having to develop content for only a small fraction of their player base.

Also I hate the notion of "balance" as it is used by developers today. The best way to balance a game is take however many power/skill sets you have and create that many teams, giving each team 1 set. And then pit them into competition with each other. Allow players to be creative with these sets and it will automatically balance itself because the teams will start doing one upsmanship while the players will discover tactics to each new skill. Unless you have a person that makes abilities that are what i would consider cheating which is no way to block, automatic 1 hit kos, etc that when introduced just ruin the game.

Isn't changing stats vertical advancement that just isn't leveling? The moment I get a skill others cannot due to strenght limitations or whatnot, I see that as a vertical advancement -- I am above others, I am better, I made progress. Customization is a cool thing, but some or even most players will go for a dominant strategy if given the occasion and resources (as in knowledge how to do it etc.).

Technically a skill being mastered is vertical growth too.

The idea is not so much 100% no vertical advancement but rather horizontal as the primary mover.
You advance by growing your arsenal of what you can do, being smarter, and being prepared.

Vertical Growth is growing through simply having the bigger number.
Yes there is some horizontal growth in vertical growth but it is largely versions of the same thing with bigger numbers.

Also you wouldn't get skills through having higher strength... different levels of strength would be proficient with different skills... you can still do the skill, but it's not as effective...and as pointed out sometimes lower stats are better.

Okay, now I have a clear view of what you mean. The game makes horizontal progression, while the player takes care of his own personal vertical progression. As fine and simple as it sounds, we can see it's not so easy to implement in games whatsoever Maybe due to player skill not being as desirable by some as it should? I noticed that sometimes players do not care much about mastering a game, and games especially from the FPS area, which is purelly skill based, frustrates them. Maybe the key to this mystery -- why games aren't horizontally oriented -- lies within the player audience?

I, for one, have a wild passion at perfecting my gameplay style -- so yes, I find personal growth more interesting than the virtual one. What is your take on this matter?

Okay, now I have a clear view of what you mean. The game makes horizontal progression, while the player takes care of his own personal vertical progression. As fine and simple as it sounds, we can see it's not so easy to implement in games whatsoever Maybe due to player skill not being as desirable by some as it should? I noticed that sometimes players do not care much about mastering a game, and games especially from the FPS area, which is purelly skill based, frustrates them. Maybe the key to this mystery -- why games aren't horizontally oriented -- lies within the player audience?

I, for one, have a wild passion at perfecting my gameplay style -- so yes, I find personal growth more interesting than the virtual one. What is your take on this matter?

I prefer both simultaneously...

I hate FPSs because it is not "skill" oriented as some people like to think
People good at FPSs are people who have
awesome computers
great reaction times
average to great eye sight
Early adopter

How so?
FPSs push graphic card to the maximum for the most part with particle effects and such so if you can't afford a good computer with a good connection you are likely to be crap at an FPS

Great Reaction Times - You can only train this moderately to improve it and only after a lot of time spent doing something. So you are either born naturally with reaction times or not. This isn't a skill it's a biological thing.... Also this could explain why most FPS fans are what would be consider jar heads... not much going on in the head which means it's easier for them to process and react because it's the only thing they are thinking about/doing.

Again, unless you are biologically gifted or are able to get good corrective lenses you aren't going to be able to play FPSs because it too hard to distinguish stuff, especially against "natural" colors. I mean i love black and my eyes are great with contrast but when everything is the same contrast and dark as hell... my extremely short sighted eyes are not going to be able to see that crap

If you get the game new you don't have to deal with the people that know where everything is and try to acclimatize to the game while having people who do nothing but play that game spawn camp you. FPSs pretty much never allow newer players to play so most new players will just say screw it and never get any better or just quit...

Once you get beyond all that, sure it's skill based, but that weeds out most people...


The problem that you bring up that people don't like learning skills... this isn't true so much as we set a low bar for skill or an insurmountable wall... If you tell them learn and things get easier they will. If you tell them learn and you can get past this thing they will... If you tell them learn and this guy will still kick your ass, they won't and never will...and will get bored and quit.


And as "complicated" as my system sounds it really isn't it's just applying what game developers already have more creatively for the most part. Piercing, stun, ranged, combos, all these things have already been implemented in games they just aren't used to their potential

Darn, the forums "ironed out" my post I don't like to repeat myself so I will just write a short version of the post I intended.

The drawbacks you metnioned in FPSes are easily dropped when you approach the problem creativelly. Enchance brightness, lower details are just a few examples. I do agree we have innate predispositions to reflexes and reacting to movement (looking at a screen has nothing to do with eyesight and it's focus, the screen does not move no matter how hard you try) but even those can be trained like muscles. The most important skill one can lack in an FPS is the gut to take the challenge and the will to improve. I have both and managed to be on par with good players on a crappy 6 year Athlon running games at 12 FPS, sometimes going down to 10 and freezing. If you don't like FPS games, don't blame genetics for not delivering you a perfect set of genes.

What you just wrote shows that you do not want to improve in FPS (cause you think you can't), thus not wanting to learn that particular skill. Being persistant is also a skill some do not need/want to learn