An RPG without leveling

[Dementia Praecox]

What the hell, when I read a book I don't get, nor do I need, a reward for finishing a chapter. The urge to find out how the story goes is enough to keep me going. I remember Prelude to Darkness getting some pepper for insufficient rewards and loot. I didn't need that, my wanting to see how the story unfolded, how that particular quest turned out was more than enough to keep me playing (until the bugs and frequent ctds killed everything, but that's a different matter). Same goes for PST. The story and quests was what kept me hooked. In fact I played that game, in spite of the combat and phat loot, not because of it.

A non-linear game with multiple story-arches without the typical loot-type reward and stat-based character advancement is entirely possible. It just needs more work, more imagination and the will to move away form established doctrines of the genre. It's harder to make. But if it ends up being more of an adventure, so fucking what? I loved the old point and click-adventure games. Now if I could get one of those, in an open world of the Gothics or Elder Scrolls-type, with some heavy choice and consequences, and a good story to boot, I'd be overjoyed! I don't give a fuck about it's genre. I want that game!

 

[Kraszu]

The difference is that if you make it further between rewards then you have less character development going on. In PnP you can get an exp reward just for coming up with a good in-character line, and you should get more of a reward for doing something in-character.

When I was young (teen) I found this reward business something of value, becoming better, getting hold of that axe of überness. But for every passing year I found it less and less rewarding and instead the interaction, story an actions of the players took over. succeding or even failing was the reward, creating a great story was awesome.

Ita like how playing a football game is fun for me, I do not need feel I become better out of it to be rewarded, I don't need a candy when I win. Same goes for my RPGs.

You are not thinking of character development except in the crudest sense. Getting an axe that does an extra point of damage is not character development, but gaining new abilities or new items that bring about more *real* options are.

In my system you got more options when you progress in guild/other important group. Why don't you comment on it, I ask again what is the big difference between advancing in guild and getting access to new knowledge and weapons/alchemy/[...] then raise your stats form perspective that you talk about?

 

[obediah]

wow it has all the bile and insults of a normal rpg discussion at the codex. But there isn't even any meat mixed in with the gristle. I guess a few years of bitchslapping Oblivion fagg0ts and dumbfucking each other has really taken it's toll.

 

[kris]

The difference is that if you make it further between rewards then you have less character development going on. In PnP you can get an exp reward just for coming up with a good in-character line, and you should get more of a reward for doing something in-character.

When I was young (teen) I found this reward business something of value, becoming better, getting hold of that axe of überness. But for every passing year I found it less and less rewarding and instead the interaction, story an actions of the players took over. succeding or even failing was the reward, creating a great story was awesome.

Ita like how playing a football game is fun for me, I do not need feel I become better out of it to be rewarded, I don't need a candy when I win. Same goes for my RPGs.

You are not thinking of character development except in the crudest sense. Getting an axe that does an extra point of damage is not character development, but gaining new abilities or new items that bring about more *real* options are.

You are contradicting what you said yourself, with your wants of some reward for every little thing in the game. I am saying that for me the reward is what I do, not as much how my avatar grows his penis.

As this discussion was about not having levels and stat increments then I can only agree that it is possible. Now I would say that it still is a good thing to have as long as it is sensible. (exclude all JRPGs in that case)

 

[Jim Kata]

The difference is that if you make it further between rewards then you have less character development going on. In PnP you can get an exp reward just for coming up with a good in-character line, and you should get more of a reward for doing something in-character.

When I was young (teen) I found this reward business something of value, becoming better, getting hold of that axe of überness. But for every passing year I found it less and less rewarding and instead the interaction, story an actions of the players took over. succeding or even failing was the reward, creating a great story was awesome.

Ita like how playing a football game is fun for me, I do not need feel I become better out of it to be rewarded, I don't need a candy when I win. Same goes for my RPGs.

You are not thinking of character development except in the crudest sense. Getting an axe that does an extra point of damage is not character development, but gaining new abilities or new items that bring about more *real* options are.

You are contradicting what you said yourself, with your wants of some reward for every little thing in the game. I am saying that for me the reward is what I do, not as much how my avatar grows his penis.

As this discussion was about not having levels and stat increments then I can only agree that it is possible. Now I would say that it still is a good thing to have as long as it is sensible. (exclude all JRPGs in that case)

The idea is not so much the reward as putting character development into each part of the game.

I would explain more but I am pretty tired of making the attempt at this point.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

wow it has all the bile and insults of a normal rpg discussion at the codex. But there isn't even any meat mixed in with the gristle. I guess a few years of bitchslapping Oblivion fagg0ts and dumbfucking each other has really taken it's toll.

You mean the thread in general, or just that particular post?

 

[LCJr.]

You know Dementia you're one of the few people I've seen to take the time to respond to one of obediah's posts. Don't let it happen again.

 

[RGE]

I disagree whit that. I want to make decision when I know game world and combat mechanics on what to use. In creation screen you make decision whit piratically no information (other then assumption that it will be not much different then in other games). I don't why those decisions would be to much at once since they all are connected whit guilds anyway in my system.

If I find that my character didn't turn out the way the character creation made me think it would, then I could always quit and recreate. Assuming that the game is good I'll want to replay it anyway, in which case I'll have ample information about what to expect, and thus I'll know how to create the character for the style of play I'm aiming for. If the game is bad I probably won't even finish it (and probably didn't pay for it either), and thus it doesn't matter if the first character had to be created with too little information.

I'm also hoping that the game would be good enough that the game designer would have balanced everything in a way that makes all stat choices carry similar weight and offer similar amounts of fun stuff to do. That may not be the case, as it hasn't been in the past, but maybe in the future game designers will learn how to walk before they try to run. Though I suppose that I'm being unrealistic here. The people who create games will probably always be too tempted to put in more 'choices' than they can be bothered to create content for. Thank you so much for giving me the choice to toss my limited points away on crap stats that you didn't bother to support in the game. (not that I usually find myself spending my limited points of crap stats the first time I play through)

Also, levelling does not help me adjust to the gameworld enough to compensate for poor choices at character creation. When I first played Fallout I restarted at least twice because I found stuff to do that I wanted my character to be able to do, but which he couldn't do well enough because I had already spent too many points on other things. Granted, that's more like 'powergaming to maximize experience of content' rather than 'aiming for a playstyle and missing because the game didn't provide for it'. But I think that the same applies either way - character creation choices are often so important that struggling to change by way of levelling doesn't help much. Depends on the game though, since not all games rely upon attributes near set in stone.

 

[Crichton]

You are contradicting what you said yourself, with your wants of some reward for every little thing in the game. I am saying that for me the reward is what I do, not as much how my avatar grows his penis.

The idea is not so much the reward as putting character development into each part of the game.

This probably sums up the entire existential crisis that seems to be going on in the RPG "genre" right now. I agree with kris, but there appear to be so few like us that there are never going to be any more "RPGs" for people like us.

When I was a kid, I'd play anything with swords and orcs, everything from the old gold box games to wizardry games to dungeon hack to eye of the beholder if it had orcs and swords, it didn't matter how stupid it was. As I grew older I became more and more enchanted with games that had a compelling storyline and dialog (Darksun: Shattered Lands and BG 1+2, PS:T) and in my first year at uni, after playing arcanum, I developed a taste for games that gave me choices and dug up fallout 1+2, it was a golden time for role-playing.

However at the same time I was moving from BGII to arcanum, every other "RPG" fan on earth was moving from diablo I to diablo II. This is pretty much where progress ended and in fact, where regress started as far as I'm concerned. I always saw character progression as a chore to be done so I could proceed with the storyline, but it turns out that everyone else saw character progression as the end in and of itself. So while I was hoping character progression would be removed from these wonderful story-driven, dialog heavy fantasy epics, everyone else was hoping for less dialog so they could concentrate on the level grinding.

The end result is that there's never going to be another arcanum and the "RPG" genre is soon going to contain nothing but clones of diablo and WoW, freed from all other constraints, level-grinding/ phat lewt collecting can continue forever. Since arcanum, we've had NWN2 offering some attempt at roleplaying and very weak ultimate hero / merciless villain stuff from KOTOR 1+2 and G3 (what kind of a story has a protagonist that's either a hero as pure as the driven snow or a wretched pool of bile in armor and nothing in between? that's right bioware, that's why it doesn't work!) The only good news is that other games with nifty stories are becoming more common (mafia, GTA series, max payne series).

Aside from the death of a type of game that I liked, the really sad thing for me is how much of this is reflected here, among what I'd think would be the largest concentration of people who'd be against treadmill porn. I've heard everything here from "Daggerfall's system was great because it forced you to level" to "diablo II is a great dungeon crawler" to 'there's no point in exploring dungeons if I gets no lewt!'

Bryce is actually a fairly typical example, he's always played RPGs to treamill and he only prefers SP to MMO out of nostalgia, to accommodate people like him, there'll always be another Silverfall or Oblivion instead of WoW or whatever. Meanwhile, so nearly as I can determine, "RPGs" were always kept afloat by people that liked character progression, with that available in a purer form from diablo clones and MMOs, "traditional RPGs" are dead. DEAD! GAME OVER! Since the mass market will never buy a game with character creation, plot branching, dialog and choices/consequences without treadmill porn, there will never be an "RPG" without leveling.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I don't know. I'm fairly fond of levelling up. I like a good bit of spreadsheeting and such in a CRPG with goals to look forward to achieving and such beyond just what I do within the world itself.

The big problem is that too many CRPGs out there seem to focus way too damned much on what you get and fail to make the how you get there fun or even meaningful. Imagine three characters in a CRPG sitting around a tavern. The warrior proclaims he's the baddest warrior in the room. The thief says, "Oh? How'd you get to be the baddest?" The warrior replies, "I killed 5000 monsters! Now I'm the greatest in my guild." The thief says, "Well, that's nice. I'm the best thief in my guild." The warrior says, "Oh? How'd you do it?" The thief replies, "I also killed 5000 monsters." The wizard looks up and says, "Hey! That's how I became the ultimate wizard in my guild!"

At that point, what the hell's the difference? Three different "trades" all getting to be the best because they wiped out dungeon after dungeon of monster in possibly different fashions, but kill count is about all there is.

Levelling ain't the problem, it's the fact there's not much in the way of how it's done in the majority of CRPGs out there. Removing levelling is about like treating the symptoms of cancer as opposed to treating the cancer itself.

 

[LCJr.]

Good to see you back Saint.

I tend to view the "kill 5000 monsters" as simple filler. As a developer it's easier to throw massive amounts of combat at the player than come up with an inventive story and quests.

OT-That's what bums me out about Vogel. He's shown he's got talent and can do good stories, plots and quests but still chucks the endless combat at you.

edit>Speaking of symptoms. If the developer does throw massive amounts of combat at the player that tends to lead to combat-centric characters.

edit edit>What can I say I'm drunk. Anyway Saint would you consider leveling a requirement of the genre? Way back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and I started with PnP about the only two games in town were AD&D(leveling) and Traveller which had basically static characters.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Haha, this thread was interesting enough to keep section8 in [delurk] and to resurrect Saint_Proverbius! Eat shit, Bryce!

 

[SkeleTony]

Bullshit. Role-playing is the main aspect of RPGs. In a quality RPG, developing your personality should be much more important than developing skills and phat lewt. Torment is a good example of that.

Double bullshit. Roleplaying has very little to do with roleplaying GAMES. You might as well be arguing that American football is primarily about using the "foot".

RPGs are tactical simulation games whether you like it or not. They already have the sorts of games you are clamoring for here. Their called "Adventure games". No advancement/leveling.

Triple bullshit.

They already have a genre for tactical simulation games, it's called tactical simulation games.

Skippy, RPGS ARE tactical simulation games or a specific type of said genre. They are a sub-genre of war/strategy games. Instead of a player controlling and making decisions about how to use the cavalry or archers in whatever scenario(in war games where one generally handles large armies composed of many smaller squads), the player in RPGs is dealing with a single squad which can be from one character(composed of several "smaller" attributes) or a handful of characters.

What you said above didn't even make sense!?

EDIT: So how about Bryce and his stupid alts just get the fuck out of here, because it has been already stated numerous times, that the question in which genre this imaginary game would end up is irrelevant. (Even if they were correct with their stupid claims)

I do not know who Bryce is but are you saying that I am one of his alts?!

 

[SkeleTony]

RPGs are tactical simulation games whether you like it or not. They already have the sorts of games you are clamoring for here. Their called "Adventure games". No advancement/leveling..

System that I write about have advancement, so read it and then comment. I wont even brother to point other flaws of your argument.

Who are you and why do you think I care about your "system"?? You think you are going to find flaws in MY arguments and you make the above error(presuming that I read anything you wrote anywhere and was responding to such)?

Do try.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

I do not know who Bryce is but are you saying that I am one of his alts?!

He is saying you are stupid. You just claimed that RPGs are a sub-genre of war/strategy games, so I'm not about proving him wrong.

At that point, what the hell's the difference? Three different "trades" all getting to be the best because they wiped out dungeon after dungeon of monster in possibly different fashions, but kill count is about all there is.

Making killing a last resort only would be a big step in the right direction. Creating interesting quests related to a given trade without involving violence isn't that hard. The problem is that it would rule out all the action-craving ADD-kiddies as a potential audience.

 

[SkeleTony]

Their called "Adventure games". No advancement/leveling.

You have to realize that pnps and rpgs have evolved.

"Evolve" means to CHANGE(for better, worse or otherwise). All things evolve, including game genres.

PNPs have evolved from war strategy games when someone decided to create a war game based on a fantasy scenario inspired on The Lord Of The Rings.

Close. The first RPG evolved from a fantasy war game called "Chainmail". True that Tolkien(and a host of other writers of heroic fantasy) inspired it but the fictional genre/setting is irrelevant here. The first RPG could have just as easily been a science fiction game based on star trek if that had been how the authors were thinking.

Until this point you are right when you say that RPGs are tactical combat simulators on some battlefield.

They still are and always have been. Take a look at P&P RPGs and compare them with strategy war games. RPGs are a type of tactical simulators the same way that squad-based tactical games are a type of war games.

But then things have evolved and these battlefields become more detailed with an history and their own novels and heroes.

But if you are not acknowledging the game mechanics which enable such then what you say above applies equally to FPS games, shoot-'em-ups, brawlers, etc.

RPGs become not just battlefields where could play as fighter who uses shields and swords or a fighter who uses magic whose purpose was to defeat the evil enemy and save the lady in distress. You could play as a novel character in a fantastic world with much more interesting objectives to play and characters to interact with.

Irrelvant conclusion and youa re also presupposing that there is some objective "progression" from "fighting enemies" to whatever you personally find "more interesting".

I do not think anyone here, and certainly not me, is saying that we want RPGs to all be unimaginative or repetitive(at least not all of them). My favorite RPGs of all time were Skyrealms of Jorune and RuneQuest which were known for their settings/story/plots etc. But the ability of a writer to utilize game mechanics to craft interesting scenarios. characters, etc. is NOT an identifying characteristic of RPGs as a genre. Good storytellers can potentially be found in EVERY genre of game.

What separates RPGs from other genres are the game mechanics which enable everything from "kill the foozle" simplicity to whatever we find to be more interesting within any given RPG. Even a game as poorly designed as D&D you can find scenariors that range from the stupid(most of the forgotten realms stuff) to the enticing(Dark Sun, Ravenloft etc.) and even the potentially BRILLIANT(if you widen the scope to include any d20 system-based RPG).
But even a game with NO COMBAT, where "good" and "evil" are meaningless terms(or at least only subjective evaluations of behavior) and most 'conflict' takes toe form of political debate or some such, is STILL a role-playing game IF the game mechanics involve developing characters by quantified attributes, becoming more proficient with experience.

What makes this different from adventure games is that you can choose who you want be and what objectives you want to archive in the game.

Wrong. In many RPGS you are given pre-created characters and in some adventure games you are allowed to come up with your own identity. This is not an identifier for either genre.

In a purely rp perspective advancement is irrelevant.

Maybe. I am not a "role player"(i.e. I do not get invo0lved in improvisational acting or play bizarre S&M games in the bedroom). I am a role playing GAMER. Two COMPLETELY different things. People get confused about this because the term includes the words "role playing" and think this means we should be wearing foil and speaking in faux Shakespearean english from behind our monitors(or GM screens). RPG mechanics DO enable such(better than any game genre) if that is your thing but character advancement by means of quantified progression is a necessary component of the genre.

It may even be counter-productive because it imposes your character a way of playing than in many circumstances results in players overlooking roleplaying in favor of powergaming.

Who cares?! What you say here is akin to someone saying that FPS games should not contain violence because some players will get too caught up in the violence and may lash out at others in real life.

 

[SkeleTony]

What the hell, when I read a book I don't get, nor do I need, a reward for finishing a chapter. The urge to find out how the story goes is enough to keep me going. I remember Prelude to Darkness getting some pepper for insufficient rewards and loot. I didn't need that, my wanting to see how the story unfolded, how that particular quest turned out was more than enough to keep me playing (until the bugs and frequent ctds killed everything, but that's a different matter). Same goes for PST. The story and quests was what kept me hooked. In fact I played that game, in spite of the combat and phat loot, not because of it.

And you were calling ME "stupid" kiddo?

Reading a book is an activity where one picks up a primarily textual piece and reads what someone else has written, with no interaction on the reader's part in how the story unfolds.
RPGs are a genre of INTERACTIVE GAMES(not books) that entail entirely different "rewards"(in addition to seeing a story unfold in most cases). If you enjoy reading a book more than playing a RPG then go read a book! Why play a RPG, notice that the rewards are nothing like being lead along a linear story and then complain about it not being a book?!?

A non-linear game with multiple story-arches without the typical loot-type reward and stat-based character advancement is entirely possible.

Yes. In fact it has been done before. They call them Adventure games. You should try one sometime because they are exactly what you are clamoring for here I think( See also the sub-genre of interactive fiction).

It just needs more work, more imagination and the will to move away form established doctrines of the genre. It's harder to make. But if it ends up being more of an adventure, so fucking what? I loved the old point and click-adventure games.

Then why are you here at the RPG forums requesting that RPGs become adventure games rather than simply calling for more adventure games?! I do not go to the adventure games forums and start prattling on about how the next Monkey Island game should have stats and leveling!

 

[galsiah]

Levelling ain't the problem, it's the fact there's not much in the way of how it's done in the majority of CRPGs out there. Removing levelling is about like treating the symptoms of cancer as opposed to treating the cancer itself.

Not really - it's more like stripping away hype or flashy graphics. It's kicking away the game's crutches to see if it can still walk.
I agree that levelling (or stat/loot progression generally) isn't the central problem - the problem is that levelling can become the main focus of the game. It helps to make sure that the process of levelling rewards and encourages reasonable behaviour/role-playing. It also helps to make sure that the game is compelling without the progression mechanics.

I do enjoy thinking about stats / perks etc. in some games, just as I enjoy shooting aliens in others. These can both be entertaining in themselves, but that's not to say they're necessary (they're clearly not), and not to say they either enhance the game over-all, or are the best design choice.
I'd much rather do my planning, and make important choices in the game world, than spend time debating the relative merits of two perks. Of course, in many RPGs, there is very little planning / strategy / consequence in the game world, so perk juggling is the only opportunity. This might be better than nothing, but it's a poor substitute.

 

[LCJr.]

PNPs have evolved from war strategy games when someone decided to create a war game based on a fantasy scenario inspired on The Lord Of The Rings.

Close. The first RPG evolved from a fantasy war game called "Chainmail". True that Tolkien(and a host of other writers of heroic fantasy) inspired it but the fictional genre/setting is irrelevant here. The first RPG could have just as easily been a science fiction game based on star trek if that had been how the authors were thinking.

Chainmail may have been the first but it was quickly followed by several others that were not spawned from miniture wargaming. In my area D&D's biggest competitor was GDW's Traveller. RuneQuest(1978) never caught on in my area for some reason.

Game Designer's Workshop brought out Traveller in 1978(Wiki says 77' but my books are copyrighted 78'), same year as the 1st Edition of the AD&D Players Handbook. Besides the obvious sci-fi setting it contrasts D&D in being a skill based game. Also instead of starting out as lowly peasants characters begin middle aged(generally) after following a career. Characters don't level and increasing stats or skills is hard and takes time. Age also reduces stats. I wouldn't be surprised if this game inspired the character creation in Darklands. Given the sci-fi setting combat is mostly ranged and handled in the abstract rather than in a detailed miniture rules fashion.

Guess by your definition Traveller would be a PnP Adventure game not an RPG, eh?

Just because D&D was the first doesn't make it the "one true way" and there were quite a few alternatives before PC gaming took off.

 

[Jim Kata]

You are contradicting what you said yourself, with your wants of some reward for every little thing in the game. I am saying that for me the reward is what I do, not as much how my avatar grows his penis.

The idea is not so much the reward as putting character development into each part of the game.

This probably sums up the entire existential crisis that seems to be going on in the RPG "genre" right now. I agree with kris, but there appear to be so few like us that there are never going to be any more "RPGs" for people like us.

When I was a kid, I'd play anything with swords and orcs, everything from the old gold box games to wizardry games to dungeon hack to eye of the beholder if it had orcs and swords, it didn't matter how stupid it was. As I grew older I became more and more enchanted with games that had a compelling storyline and dialog (Darksun: Shattered Lands and BG 1+2, PS:T) and in my first year at uni, after playing arcanum, I developed a taste for games that gave me choices and dug up fallout 1+2, it was a golden time for role-playing.

However at the same time I was moving from BGII to arcanum, every other "RPG" fan on earth was moving from diablo I to diablo II. This is pretty much where progress ended and in fact, where regress started as far as I'm concerned. I always saw character progression as a chore to be done so I could proceed with the storyline, but it turns out that everyone else saw character progression as the end in and of itself. So while I was hoping character progression would be removed from these wonderful story-driven, dialog heavy fantasy epics, everyone else was hoping for less dialog so they could concentrate on the level grinding.

The end result is that there's never going to be another arcanum and the "RPG" genre is soon going to contain nothing but clones of diablo and WoW, freed from all other constraints, level-grinding/ phat lewt collecting can continue forever. Since arcanum, we've had NWN2 offering some attempt at roleplaying and very weak ultimate hero / merciless villain stuff from KOTOR 1+2 and G3 (what kind of a story has a protagonist that's either a hero as pure as the driven snow or a wretched pool of bile in armor and nothing in between? that's right bioware, that's why it doesn't work!) The only good news is that other games with nifty stories are becoming more common (mafia, GTA series, max payne series).

Aside from the death of a type of game that I liked, the really sad thing for me is how much of this is reflected here, among what I'd think would be the largest concentration of people who'd be against treadmill porn. I've heard everything here from "Daggerfall's system was great because it forced you to level" to "diablo II is a great dungeon crawler" to 'there's no point in exploring dungeons if I gets no lewt!'

Bryce is actually a fairly typical example, he's always played RPGs to treamill and he only prefers SP to MMO out of nostalgia, to accommodate people like him, there'll always be another Silverfall or Oblivion instead of WoW or whatever. Meanwhile, so nearly as I can determine, "RPGs" were always kept afloat by people that liked character progression, with that available in a purer form from diablo clones and MMOs, "traditional RPGs" are dead. DEAD! GAME OVER! Since the mass market will never buy a game with character creation, plot branching, dialog and choices/consequences without treadmill porn, there will never be an "RPG" without leveling.

You just don't get it. Diablo is not a fucking RPG.

I will have to start a new thread at some point and just try to spell it out for you people. I don't think the problem is with my ability to articulate it though, for the most part.

 

[SkeleTony]

PNPs have evolved from war strategy games when someone decided to create a war game based on a fantasy scenario inspired on The Lord Of The Rings.

Close. The first RPG evolved from a fantasy war game called "Chainmail". True that Tolkien(and a host of other writers of heroic fantasy) inspired it but the fictional genre/setting is irrelevant here. The first RPG could have just as easily been a science fiction game based on star trek if that had been how the authors were thinking.

Chainmail may have been the first but it was quickly followed by several others that were not spawned from miniture wargaming. In my area D&D's biggest competitor was GDW's Traveller. RuneQuest(1978) never caught on in my area for some reason.

Game Designer's Workshop brought out Traveller in 1978(Wiki says 77' but my books are copyrighted 78'), same year as the 1st Edition of the AD&D Players Handbook. Besides the obvious sci-fi setting it contrasts D&D in being a skill based game. Also instead of starting out as lowly peasants characters begin middle aged(generally) after following a career. Characters don't level and increasing stats or skills is hard and takes time. Age also reduces stats. I wouldn't be surprised if this game inspired the character creation in Darklands. Given the sci-fi setting combat is mostly ranged and handled in the abstract rather than in a detailed miniture rules fashion.

Guess by your definition Traveller would be a PnP Adventure game not an RPG, eh?

Just because D&D was the first doesn't make it the "one true way" and there were quite a few alternatives before PC gaming took off.

You are mis-reading me here guy. I am well aware of GDW & Traveller and was a fan of those games myself(though I enjoyed RuneQuest much more ). Traveller, in all of it's various editions, was a RPG, not an "adventure game". I think you are getting to caught up in irrelevant details like "leveling"(meaning having specific character "levels" reached at what amounts to predefined numbers of "kills" in many RPGs).
In short, "leveling" is not by any means a necessary component of RPGs but quantified/stat-based progression IS and therefore Traveller is a RPG because it featured this element.

D&D was a terrible game system as I have repeatedly stated before. Please do not assume I am some derfender of "D&D's way". I am well aware of probably every single one of thsoe "alternatives" in P&P gaming(I would wager my house that I remember games that you never heard of). I started playing them shortly after D&D came out and I owned/played hundreds of different RPGs from Tunnels & Trolls to Daredevils(FGU game about pulp era heroes).

 

[Kraszu]

RPGs are tactical simulation games whether you like it or not. They already have the sorts of games you are clamoring for here. Their called "Adventure games". No advancement/leveling..

System that I write about have advancement, so read it and then comment. I wont even brother to point other flaws of your argument.

Who are you and why do you think I care about your "system"?? You think you are going to find flaws in MY arguments and you make the above error(presuming that I read anything you wrote anywhere and was responding to such)?

Do try.

Why then you are position in forum moron. Who am? Poster that support what he say, who are you? Idiot that don't even read post in threat that he respond to. Reading is teh hard fuck off from codex or read before you post.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

...

HE RAIZED FROM TEH DED

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Oh boy, where to start.

What the hell, when I read a book I don't get, nor do I need, a reward for finishing a chapter. The urge to find out how the story goes is enough to keep me going. I remember Prelude to Darkness getting some pepper for insufficient rewards and loot. I didn't need that, my wanting to see how the story unfolded, how that particular quest turned out was more than enough to keep me playing (until the bugs and frequent ctds killed everything, but that's a different matter). Same goes for PST. The story and quests was what kept me hooked. In fact I played that game, in spite of the combat and phat loot, not because of it.

And you were calling ME "stupid" kiddo?

No gramps, I weren't.

Reading a book is an activity where one picks up a primarily textual piece and reads what someone else has written, with no interaction on the reader's part in how the story unfolds.

No shit.

RPGs are a genre of INTERACTIVE GAMES(not books)...

Hello Captain Obvious! What are you trying to prove?

that entail entirely different "rewards"(in addition to seeing a story unfold in most cases).

This is the exact matter at hand. Why are they different? Do they have to be different? This is what we are discussing. Wake up.

If you enjoy reading a book more than playing a RPG then go read a book!

Now plaese point me to where I say that I enjoy reading books more than playing RPGs. It happens to be (mostly) the truth, but that's besides the point. And if game developers actually rose to the level of quality literature, I'd probably spend more time playing their games. If I love one thing, it doesn't mean I can't like another. And I am, in fact, reading a book. You should too, you'd hopefully pick up some reading comprehension, which obviously is suffering for the time being.

Why play a RPG, notice that the rewards are nothing like being lead along a linear story and then complain about it not being a book?!?

Hmm, this is a tough one. Could it be that I happen to like playing RPGs? No, that clearly can't be the case, as I'm (zomg!) criticising the genre and come with suggestions on how it can be improved.

A non-linear game with multiple story-arches without the typical loot-type reward and stat-based character advancement is entirely possible.

Yes. In fact it has been done before. They call them Adventure games. You should try one sometime because they are exactly what you are clamoring for here I think( See also the sub-genre of interactive fiction).

Ok, I'll admit my description was a bit inadequate, but the gist of what I meant should be more clear in the context of:

Now if I could get one of those, in an open world of the Gothics or Elder Scrolls-type, with some heavy choice and consequences, and a good story to boot, I'd be overjoyed! I don't give a fuck about it's genre. I want that game!"

...which you conveniently decided to leave out of your quote. What I was fantasizing about, was an open ended, non linear (look it up if you are unsure of the meaning), quest based game. A game where story and characters will have the depth of the old adventure games, the game world would be open and free roaming as the Gothics and Elder Scrolls, but where the incentive to keep playing aren't to übering your characters abilities or collecting all the ancient artifacts. A game where they your main focus are to see the game world react to your actions, to see your actions have meaningful consequences, playing people and factions up against each other. To see the story evolve and have a solution. Story and choice aren't mutually exclusive, which Gothic III showed to a degree, it's just harder to do. Now I have yet to play an adventure game that offer me the same type of freedom Fallout, Arcanum, Gothic III or even The Elder Scrolls-series did. If you have played such an adventure game, please point me to it. I'd be overjoyed.

It just needs more work, more imagination and the will to move away form established doctrines of the genre. It's harder to make. But if it ends up being more of an adventure, so fucking what? I loved the old point and click-adventure games.

Then why are you here at the RPG forums requesting that RPGs become adventure games rather than simply calling for more adventure games?!

This is getting a bit tedious, but here goes nothing. I'm here at the RPG forums discussing (you can look that up too) the topic "RPGs without leveling", and suggesting (keep the dictionary at hand) how RPGs could take more cues, than it allready does, from books and adventure games to motivate the player, and keeping the players interest. I don't say: stats, loot GTFO form my RPGs. I'm saying it's entirely possible to make a game without stats and loot, witch still could be more of a RPG, than a old school adventure game. And as I said. If I am wrong in this, and the resulting game would turn out to be impossible to be classified as a RPG, so what? Give me that game. I still want it. Despite the fact it weren't to be an RPG. Or an adventure game, for that matter. Or a bloody book. I still want that game.


---
Edit: Ok, missed this:

You are mis-reading me here guy. I am well aware of GDW & Traveller and was a fan of those games myself(though I enjoyed RuneQuest much more ). Traveller, in all of it's various editions, was a RPG, not an "adventure game". I think you are getting to caught up in irrelevant details like "leveling"(meaning having specific character "levels" reached at what amounts to predefined numbers of "kills" in many RPGs).
In short, "leveling" is not by any means a necessary component of RPGs but quantified/stat-based progression IS and therefore Traveller is a RPG because it featured this element.

What? I haven't played Traveller, but the gist of what you're saying are that all games with quantified/stat-based progression are RPGs, right?

D&D was a terrible game system as I have repeatedly stated before. Please do not assume I am some derfender of "D&D's way". I am well aware of probably every single one of thsoe "alternatives" in P&P gaming(I would wager my house that I remember games that you never heard of). I started playing them shortly after D&D came out and I owned/played hundreds of different RPGs from Tunnels & Trolls to Daredevils(FGU game about pulp era heroes).

Wow, you totally baffle me with your awesome PnP-knowledge. I'm almost unable to write, that's how impressed I am. I barely manage to ask you this: Why are you in a CRPG forum discussing CRPGs when you enjoy PnP RPGs so much?

 

[denizsi]

Bryce is actually a fairly typical example, he's always played RPGs to treamill and he only prefers SP to MMO out of nostalgia, to accommodate people like him, there'll always be another Silverfall or Oblivion instead of WoW or whatever

And MMOs aren't anything like those even with the innumerous retards populating the gameworld, because?