Leveling systems in games

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

The levelling systems in games are there to reflect our characters growth. The player is rewarded for meeting challenges and becomes stronger for it, alongside the unfolding story and increasing challenges being presented. It's a tough balancing act but when done right is quite sublime.

Examples of great systems:
Neverwinter Nights 1/2 - The D&D 3.5ed ruleset is masterfully polished and balanced and the levelling system works brilliantly. We have the ability to play almost any conceivable character thanks to multi-classing and main things such as health/BAB/Saving throws and defenses go up irrespective of what class we choose. A lvl 20 wizard will have great spellcasting ability but be frail in combat alongside a warrior or monk...as it should be.

DE: Human Revolution - Despite the fact that by game's end we had enough praxis kits to more or less have all available upgrades, the availability and effect of getting a kit was satisfying, immediate and noticible. As soon as one gets the strength perk, Jensen can throw vending machines around like empty boxes. Upgrading the cloak, hacking abilities, recoil reduction or damage protection had tangible effects that enhanced the gameplay and opened up new tactical choices.

Prince of Persia: Sands of time - Why is an adventure game in the list? Because it deserves to be, that's why. Throughout the game we found sand clouds that increased the daggers potential. There were the extra-dimensional fountains that boosted health and the increasingly powerful swords to find too. The Prince grew as we adventured on, he became better at doing what he did, even as his clothes started disappearing! Finding each upgrade was immensely satisfying and, while not felt immediately, over time the changes became apparent.

Skyrim was quite good, though nothing spectacular. Seperate skills and perks worked I suppose but the best thing I will say about it is that it improved over previous TES games without necessarily changing a great deal. It was the balancing act that Bethesda nailed in Skyrim. The downside is that it's conceivable for a player to early in the game, max out blacksmithing and enchanting for example. Now, while this does offer obvious, tangible benefits, it also means that the player will be *minimum* lvl 40/41. With enemy scaling (albeit better than Oblivion) this means that the player would face lvl 40 enemies despite having lvl 10 combat related skills. (At least there are followers).

 

[Scarim Coral]

I prefer both ways of levelling howing levelling by grinding need to be changed.
I would love them to give you experience point for every achivement you unlock. Xenoblade Chronicle did this and it made the achivement justify in a way seeing how it's a Wii game (no achivement/ tropy ranking online). This make it more compelling for you to get the achivement if you hate level grinding.

 

[Killspre]

I actually like both and both have good and bad things about. Although I will have to say Skyrim's level up system is a lot more exploitable then the traditional kind were you only get exp after you win a battle or kill a creature. Though the traditionals problems usually come from having to grind your ass off before a hard boss its extremely boring and nobody wants to do it. While in Oblivion and Skyrim you could do that you don't have to since enemies usually level along with you.

 

[Mordekaien]

Neverwinter Nights 1/2 - The D&D 3.5ed ruleset is masterfully polished and balanced and the levelling system works brilliantly. We have the ability to play almost any conceivable character thanks to multi-classing and main things such as health/BAB/Saving throws and defenses go up irrespective of what class we choose. A lvl 20 wizard will have great spellcasting ability but be frail in combat alongside a warrior or monk...as it should be.

On the other hand someone who doesn't know what BAB/AC/DC/d4 etc. is, pretty screwed and showered with many numbers that they won't get, so they can end up getting a weak character simply because they chose wrong feats, spells... Most people will understand things like "attack with this sword is 10% more effective against goblins" but "this sword deals 2d6 extra damage against goblinoids" can leave a person who never played D&D puzzled (don't get me wrong, I love NwN- currently replaying the first, but those rules are better left for PnP imho)

 

[DANEgerous]

As far as leveling i tend to hate options like (X amount more of this stat) the start to feel necessary as they tend to be a core part of your charter, they should just be given on a level up.

I like thing that define you charter as something much like Skyrim, you pick something that tend to be non stat biased and let you charter don something others can not rather than just oh look i can do more damage. Yeah that should be the basis of leveling up no an option in it. Even the "Mist of Pandaran" WoW expansion will be more like this it just sounds very very thin with far to few options, but we will see if that pans out as true

 

[DoPo]

Examples of great systems:
Neverwinter Nights 1/2 - The D&D 3.5ed ruleset is masterfully polished and balanced and the levelling system works brilliantly. We have the ability to play almost any conceivable character thanks to multi-classing and main things such as health/BAB/Saving throws and defenses go up irrespective of what class we choose. A lvl 20 wizard will have great spellcasting ability but be frail in combat alongside a warrior or monk...as it should be.

Excuse me while I laugh over here for a minute.

...

I'm back. Right, so what I wanted to say is "no". 3.X RAW is broken unbalanced...mess. Well, "mess" might be over the top but broken and unbalanced it is. The existence of the Tiers is a proof enough.

We have the ability to play almost any conceivable character thanks to multi-classing and main things such as health/BAB/Saving throws and defenses go up irrespective of what class we choose.

Let me laugh for another minute.

...

Right, so my dwarf barbarian decides that the days of wandering through nature with his tribes are over and he will like a bit more of this "city" thing. But being free spirited and all, he decides to pursue the trade of a bard. So he becomes a miserable scum because I didn't have the foresight to give him a higher Charisma score in the beginning, as well as the fact that being a dwar he gets an additional penalty there. Or let's try a singing fighter. Same thing. Unless you plan beforehand, it's hard to impossible to "play almost any conceivable character". Alternatively, you'll need to scour tons (literally) of sourcebooks to find the right PrC or something. Or you can make your own in which case you'll need a very good system mastery or you'll end up creating a complete mess.

A lvl 20 wizard will have great spellcasting ability but be frail in combat alongside a warrior or monk...as it should be.

You mean the wizard is even comparable to a fighter at that level? You must speak in jest. You mean the wizard wouldn't just snap his fingers and tear up reality in pieces while the fighter does what he always does - swing his weapon?

I'll be over here laughing if you need me.

 

[BishopofAges]

I enjoyed a great deal of the Bioshock 1 and 2 upgrade system, buy what you want, not what you don't. The Power to the People machines to upgrade guns and the ADAM system for health/EVE and plasmid/gene tonic upgrades. It was there when you wanted it, but it didn't DING YOU REACHED LEVEL 4 AND HAVE X AMOUNT OF POINTS TO SPEND interupt gameplay by having me choose on the spot.

Not to say that sort of leveling system is bad, it just had to be executed right. I also like it when your level/upgrades/play style have a bit more to do with your play than your gear. Systems that rely on you picking your foes for weapons/armor can get annoying if you wander into a higher level zone and are outright smeared because you didn't get a flamethrower from the last level. That said I will say that a game like The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past did a good job of relying on a balance of playstyle and tools to show the story.

I guess to sum it all up, a leveling system is a complicated thing that has to be executed right to work.

edit:

You mean the wizard is even comparable to a fighter at that level? You must speak in jest. You mean the wizard wouldn't just snap his fingers and tear up reality in pieces while the fighter does what he always does - swing his weapon?

I'll be over here laughing if you need me.

I do have to saw something here, in the case of 20th level characters, a wizard may be able to twist reality with spells and sorcery, but a warrior of equal level should*(see definition of should) have a big enough army behind him to change his own reality with his fist, gameplay speaking.

 

[teqrevisited]

I'm a fan of job classes and other specializations but it does depend on the game. In Fallout & Skyrim without mods, for example, I tend to end up becoming a walking deity, striding over the wastes and plains effortlessly, bringing happiness to towns and wiping out entire species of monster with one wave of my hand. I think I'd enjoy the option to limit my proficiencies for more of a challenge.

In basic terms I'd like something where it is not possible to level everything up to the maximum unless there is enough of a challenge to warrant being able to do everything. Thankfully in the examples above the console can be used along with mods to tweak difficulty so that you don't sneeze and accidentally cause the apocalypse, but in quite a few games those are not options.

 

[DoPo]

edit:

You mean the wizard is even comparable to a fighter at that level? You must speak in jest. You mean the wizard wouldn't just snap his fingers and tear up reality in pieces while the fighter does what he always does - swing his weapon?

I'll be over here laughing if you need me.

I do have to saw something here, in the case of 20th level characters, a wizard may be able to twist reality with spells and sorcery, but a warrior of equal level should*(see definition of should) have a big enough army behind him to change his own reality with his fist, gameplay speaking.

His own reality shaping being "deal a metric shit ton of damage" (because metric > imperial)? That a fighter can do, what a fighter cannot do is have a selection of I Win buttons for every situation imaginable. And a wizard can deal a lot of damage, too the question is why bother dealing damage instead of erasing your foes out of existence or something. Why would the wizard need lots of HP when he can bend reality so he is never even touched or just straight up cure himself of any and all damage (and mechanically, healing is inferior, preventing damage is way more efficient).

But let's analyse something else - if a fighter isn't dealing damage...there just isn't much else they would do. RAW fighters are seriously screwed when it comes to anything else than "I attack it with my sword". A wizard can still bend reality to their whim. And they have more to do than attack. Need negotiations? Done. Need something fetched? Scry & done. Need to find a way to tackle an unknown enemy that shrugged off everything you threw at it so far? Well, knowledge skills & done (if not just magic). Powerful demons are tearing the kingdom apart? While the fighter is whacking them with his steel stick, the wizard will just call some equivalent of angels and have them deal with the menace. Or find a way to seal the demons off. Need to jump over a chasm? well the fighter can shine here and show off his athletic training...while the wizard just flies over with no effort. Of the party was dropped from a high place? Good thing the fighter has those tons of HP and a good Fort save. The wizard only has feather fall and no need for either of those two.

And if a fighter can have an army, why wouldn't a wizard have a magic school and apprentices? Spellcasting is ultimately superior to no spellcasting. It's a sad truth. "I attack it with my sword" is ultimately inferior to "I cast this spell and win the encounter". I mean, the fighters are like a Nokia 3310 - hardy and have a limited function - you call people (the fighter attacks), it's hard to damage (like the fighter) and Snake (representing the fighter's skill choice). The wizard, however is a smart phone - I mean, you can also call people if you really wish to but there is a spell app for almost everything else.

 

[BishopofAges]

SNIP

I see your mind is open to the possibilities of a wizard, the endlessness of new spells/spellcasting and the like, but what you havn't thought of is the time and effort of either side. A Warrior could just as soon be a King with armies of every which class you want, including wizards. Yes a wizard can just as easily have a school, but what you're not seeing in my point of discussion is this.

Both classes have equal power to control realities at the same level, its more a manner of 'how' than why. Yes a Warrior is adept at dealing damage, and the current ways of D&D have taken any sense of knowing anything, but 'ug **THUMP**' away. I speak more of the original idea of warrior and wizard just as there are druids, bards, and priests.

As for a wizard's 'unending power' there is always, ALWAYS a price to be paid. I could anything from time, age, ability, souls, to the very fabric of reality that he sacrifices for power, but it remains the same, price is still a price. Just as a warrior is usually veteran age when he ought to reach lvl 20, unless your DM is some sort of experience-spewing nincmpoop. Study, forethought, and ridgid training are aspects that all classes should use, else they are not very effective.

 

[DoPo]

SNIP

I see your mind is open to the possibilities of a wizard, the endlessness of new spells/spellcasting and the like, but what you havn't thought of is the time and effort of either side. A Warrior could just as soon be a King with armies of every which class you want, including wizards. Yes a wizard can just as easily have a school, but what you're not seeing in my point of discussion is this.

Both classes have equal power to control realities at the same level, its more a manner of 'how' than why. Yes a Warrior is adept at dealing damage, and the current ways of D&D have taken any sense of knowing anything, but 'ug **THUMP**' away. I speak more of the original idea of warrior and wizard just as there are druids, bards, and priests.

As for a wizard's 'unending power' there is always, ALWAYS a price to be paid. I could anything from time, age, ability, souls, to the very fabric of reality that he sacrifices for power, but it remains the same, price is still a price. Just as a warrior is usually veteran age when he ought to reach lvl 20, unless your DM is some sort of experience-spewing nincmpoop. Study, forethought, and ridgid training are aspects that all classes should use, else they are not very effective.

Look, I didn't want to point out the obvious but fighters are tier 5. Tier 4 at best, I suppose. They aren't in the same league as wizards. Wizards have I Win buttons, fighters don't. And you're missing the point - a fighter still has costs to have his bidding done. A wizard gets a bigger bang for his buck than a fighter any day of the week.

Adding armies is pointless because you're just underscoring the uselessness of a fighter if they aren't able to do things on their own. A wizard with an army will have more resources, yes, but a wizard is nonetheless able to do stuff on their own - everything to be precise, without much aid.

And why bring in the DM when I keep saying I'm talking RAW? The fact that a DM needs to make doubly sure things don't get out of hand just proves what I'm saying - 3.X is broken. Let me reiterate, there must be a person who looks at the rules and says "Actually, I don't think a cat's ability to slaughter people is that great." And they also have to go and say "Well, Jim, I know you can wave your hands and solve the plot but please don't. Here are some in-game reasons I've come up with." as well as make sure that fighters don't suck at everything else than fighting.

And it's not just a fighter/wizard thing - monks suffer a lot as well. Clerics are also superior. Druids have special abilities that are more powerful than entire classes [http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0346.html]. Pun-pun exists. Balance is a non-issue at points because there is no balance to keep.

3.X's mechanics at high levels are bad it may be a bit unbalanced in the beginning but when you hit epic, things just fall apart. The RNG is almost meaningless one way or another. In a lot of cases a character either can succeed 95% of the time or really rarely. Of course wizards are even more broken because they don't even have to roll sometimes. According to RAW they have the resources to just outright say what's happening rather than try to see if they succeed.

And all that assumes you have your character optimised (to some extend) otherwise they suck ten kinds of balls. If you decide to play naturally without investing in any foresight, you are not going to get the fighter with the army. You'll get a miserable slob. Alternatively, you can ditch at least some of the mechanics to have any fighters useful...but that would be due to the brokenness, wouldn't it? With a wizard you can break them but that would mean they fall to tier 3, maybe 4-ish. Let me repeat that - if you break a wizard he's going to be as useful as the best of fighters.

 

[BlazeRaider]

*Plays Mabinogi*

MWHAHAHAHA, classes MMORPG ftw! Now if only Nexon NA stopped sucking so much!

 

[spartan231490]

I like the way skyrim did it a lot, though I would have liked to see one or two more stats and be able to increase two per level up. I didn't like Oblivion's system at all though because it was too min/max or die focused. I also like the freedom of being able to put my skills in one area and my attributes in another to get more versatility without having to take a dramatically lower increase.

 

[BishopofAges]

SNIP-O the Crab

Yes, I understand you're talking RAW and the mechanics of specific sets of DnD, what I am trying to say is that there are more possibilities to every character when you ROLE-PLAY not ROLL-PLAY. Yes a fighter who fails to utilize more skills than thumping is a sad sob, but so is a wizard whose only goal is power, research, and 'win buttons' unless theres a suitable reason for his lust for power, he is simply a damp-cloth puppet being controlled by a 'Power Gamer' if you know of the definition.

This has been my point all along, to remind that the mechanics of DnD also coinside with the mechanics of storyline, role-play, and general reasoning. Else DnD becomes Grand Theft Auto with all the cheats turned on or a private server on a MMO.

 

[DoPo]

SNIP-O the Crab

Yes, I understand you're talking RAW and the mechanics of specific sets of DnD, what I am trying to say is that there are more possibilities to every character when you ROLE-PLAY not ROLL-PLAY. Yes a fighter who fails to utilize more skills than thumping is a sad sob, but so is a wizard whose only goal is power, research, and 'win buttons' unless theres a suitable reason for his lust for power, he is simply a damp-cloth puppet being controlled by a 'Power Gamer' if you know of the definition.

You don't have to be a power gamer to make a class be unbalanced. The mere existence of the wizard when there is a fighter unbalances the game. The fighter can literally just hit stuff. That's it. That's the entire purpose of the class. The wizard can do everything else without optimisation. From the very beginning one just hits while the other can cast Sleep and end the encounter outright. When not in combat the fighter cannot contribute much. The wizard still has his magic but also skills, like the various knowledges. That's why it's unbalanced - the two classes' scopes are incomparable from the very beginning.

I do know that you're not meant to play the wizards as the class that is DM v2.0 - but you just have to consciously choose to not outdo the others to make it.

This has been my point all along, to remind that the mechanics of DnD also coinside with the mechanics of storyline, role-play, and general reasoning. Else DnD becomes Grand Theft Auto with all the cheats turned on or a private server on a MMO.

And my point was that the mechanics of D&D are broken. There is no other word about them. You can go around that but I have yet to see somebody playing RAW without various fixes and/or house rules. Which is contrary to the original quote:

The D&D 3.5ed ruleset is masterfully polished and balanced and the levelling system works brilliantly. We have the ability to play almost any conceivable character thanks to multi-classing and main things such as health/BAB/Saving throws and defenses go up irrespective of what class we choose. A lvl 20 wizard will have great spellcasting ability but be frail in combat alongside a warrior or monk...as it should be.

Don't get me wrong, I like D&D. If given a choice which version to play, I'd choose 3.5 but it's just so bad every time I've played it that large portions of the rules were simply removed because they don't serve any purpose aside get in the way of story. Not help, they were an actual obstruction to playing the game. They don't coincide with storyline or role-play they constrict them.

In fact my favourite spin on 3.5 is Epic 6 [http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Epic_6] which basically caps the levels to 6 to avoid extreme brokenness problems that come with higher levels, while also making the now smaller game easier to manage and keep in check.

 

[BishopofAges]

Okay this is what I see here, help me understand if I am wrong. Your point is that in the raw mechanics of a flat plane, warrior vs wizard is that wizard will come out champ, I do not have an issue with this, because this is true.

My point in its simplest is that there are more sides to DnD than written rules/regulations which are, I admit, broken. What makes it balanced, is the DM and the player's understanding that the game is there to have fun, play through a story constucted by the DM or preconstructed.

I cannot explain myself any easier than that.

 

[Kahunaburger]

In fact my favourite spin on 3.5 is Epic 6 [http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Epic_6] which basically caps the levels to 6 to avoid extreme brokenness problems that come with higher levels, while also making the now smaller game easier to manage and keep in check.

Wow, Epic 6 is such a good idea. Reminds me of this [http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2] article.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Okay this is what I see here, help me understand if I am wrong. Your point is that in the raw mechanics of a flat plane, warrior vs wizard is that wizard will come out champ, I do not have an issue with this, because this is true.

My point in its simplest is that there are more sides to DnD than written rules/regulations which are, I admit, broken. What makes it balanced, is the DM and the player's understanding that the game is there to have fun, play through a story constucted by the DM or preconstructed.

I cannot explain myself any easier than that.

I think the main problem is that you reach a point in the game where, in-universe, the spells that immediately solve the plot become something that a competent primary caster would use. What cleric *wouldn't,* if able to, be all "okay, so we need to figure out who killed this guy? Hold on a sec, let me ask Odin."

 

[DoPo]

Okay this is what I see here, help me understand if I am wrong. Your point is that in the raw mechanics of a flat plane, warrior vs wizard is that wizard will come out champ, I do not have an issue with this, because this is true.

My point in its simplest is that there are more sides to DnD than written rules/regulations which are, I admit, broken. What makes it balanced, is the DM and the player's understanding that the game is there to have fun, play through a story constucted by the DM or preconstructed.

I cannot explain myself any easier than that.

Precisely as you say. It is down to players and the DM. I just stressed that the mechanics are ve-e-ery far away from "masterfully polished and balanced" which they are not. That doesn't mean that D&D is only about mechanics. However, since the mechanics actively get in my way of playing I don't want to see unjust praise for them. It's like getting an electric shock from a faulty toaster every time you use it. And then saying "Wow, that toaster is really good" - it hurts you when it does its function, no, it's not good.

CAPTCHA was "know your rights" but when I tried to post it already expired so the next one was "oh, wait"

 

[Kyoufuu]

I like RuneScape's. There are 25 different skills, each with their own level, tracked by the amount of xp you have in that skill. Your combat level isn't a skill on its own, but is determined by a formula involving your highest combat related skills (if you have, say, 90 Ranged, then your level 40 Magic has no effect on your combat level). To train any skill in the game, you have to use that skill. You can't kill a bunch of dudes and then after you've killed enough, suddenly gain a boost to Thieving. You want to get better at smithing? Go smith. Et cetera.