Character Progression and the Minimal Elements of an RPG

Slylandro · Jan 31, 2006

This topic is admittedly a dead horse, but I don't think the aspect of character progression has been covered that much yet. Is character progression necessary for a game to qualify as an RPG? What really are the "minimum requirements" so to speak? If Gothic II or PS: T or maybe Arcanum had no leveling scheme (the most common form of character progression), would they still be RPGs? Or would they be more akin to adventure games? Is there really a difference? This is more of a hypothetical situation, as I can't think of an offhand undisputable example of such an RPG.

A recent thread made by a games developer discussed the possibility of an RPG without combat, and a side question posed was if it would still be an RPG. Most believed yes it would still be one. So this question takes it one step further, if it's an RPG if it does not contain character progression. Is it still an RPG then, regardless of whether or not it has combat? Everything else is still in there-- dialogue trees with genuine branches (with few or no "loops"), choices and consequences, multiple solutions to a given quest, etc. To clarify one last bit, when I say character progression, I mean everything that typically entails-- acquired/learned skills, spells, "feats," "prestige classes," even basic things like hitpoints, etc. Your character does not gain any new abilities so to speak, even though you may gain new knowledge. If you have any spells or skills, they are already present at the beginning of the game, and you have a set aptitutde in them. But there is no character progression, the character does not advance in the sense of gaining new abilities or strengthening his/her capacity to use existing ones.

Lord Chambers · Jan 31, 2006

I don't think anyone will claim that character progression makes a game an RPG, or that a game without character progression cannot be called an RPG. But I do think that an RPG is an amalgamation of traits, and a preeminent one is character progression.

If you take away two aspects, lets say combat and character progression, you've got Myst. It's not an RPG. And if the other traits of the game are SO much like the those in a â€œhardcore" RPG that people believe this game is an RPG, then at best it's a borderline RPG.

Take away three aspects, and it's definitely not an RPG.

I see a discussion of labels to be kind of worthless though. I dealt with labeling on the TES forums when I claimed Morrowind was a "combat game" and 25% of responses were limited to "huh? IT'S AN RPG!" I donâ€™t think a RPG label changes any part of the game, but in the minds of some players it obviously does.

There's a certain kind of gameplay we've come to know as RPG, but it changes so much between Final Fantasy, Fallout, and Morrowind that it really is getting to be pointless. â€œRPGâ€ means something, but itâ€™s even less helpful than liberal/conservative political labels. They all tell you something, but will mislead you if you think they tell you the whole picture.

But as to the importance of character progression, I think it's a pretty significant way that we as players get the impression we're role playing. In a game without character development the entire sensation of roles and choices would have to come from the plot. It could definitely be done, but it'd be harder to pull off than by being just a â€œnormalâ€ RPG, and Iâ€™m not sure what the player would gain.

Slylandro · Jan 31, 2006

I think I see what you're saying, so you think that the term RPG carries with it certain typical traits and if it has a certain number of them, then it's an RPG. I can see the reasoning behind this. But are there any features that a game must absolutely have to qualify? Let's pretend that an RPG typically comes with these features (a simplification to make the point):

multiple solutions to quests
dialgoue trees
a dynamic world
little or no "railroading" i.e. freeform
well developed npcs with real personalities
choices have genuine impact on the world
etc

So the idea being that there is a certain threshold at which something can be considered an RPG. But would there be anything that must remain in order to reach that threshold? Say for instance if you have everything else on the list but "choices have genuine impact," is it still an RPG?

I agree that labels aren't the whole picture, but the thing with the term rpg in particular is that it has become very diluted, not just misleading. The idea of this thread isn't to develop a single encompassing definition, but find out what is the soul of an RPG so to speak.

Zomg · Jan 31, 2006

This doesn't really answer the posed question, mostly because I'm not that interested in distilling the RPG label, but you triggered a rumination on the nature of "progression".

Outside of simple ProgressQuest aggrandizement porn, character progression is more of a gameplay idiom (the same way dialog trees are a gameplay idiom) than anything else. The distinguishing feature of the progression idiom is that the scope of the game increases as you play it - you can go more places, open more doors, etc. In a very good game progression also causes sea changes in the nature of the challenges of the game; for example, in Darklands the crosscountry post-Raubritter phase is very different from the mostly citybound opening phase (at least for characters created young).

I guess if you pressed me I'd say that for a naive, narrow, "numbers going up" definition of character progression, you could call a game without any an RPG and I wouldn't bat an eye. I have a hard time imagining a a game that eschews a broader definition of character progression being an RPG, though (ex: You couldn't pick up an item off of the ground, because that would change the capabilities of your character - I'd have a hard time imagining anything but an action or puzzle game being that strictly againt character progression).

Lumpy · Jan 31, 2006

It should still allow the player to choose a class. Otherwise, it wouldn't be that much of an RPG. Character Progression, however, is unnecessary. If it allows you to role-play, it's an RPG.

EvoG · Jan 31, 2006

One thing I was mulling over was doing away with progression as a linear expectation (do stuff, gain XP, level up), but rather treat the progression as a reward. You know, I think I talked about this in that old thread regarding number-less roleplaying. Progression was treated as an event rather than just a gain of some arbitary measure of ability in swinging swords. Such as being an apprentice to a master thief. You'd have to get "noticed" by the master or in some way cross paths to begin your training.

In this way, its less about hammering forward to get stronger and stronger, necessitating stronger and stronger enemies, and more about dealing with the world with what you have, and then having increases in ability be clear and dramatic, if infrequent, and feel truly rewarding.

Slylandro · Jan 31, 2006

What about Avernum? It was classless, yet had character progression (mostly in the form of spells/skills/so on).

Zomg said:
(ex: You couldn't pick up an item off of the ground, because that would change the capabilities of your character - I'd have a hard time imagining anything but an action or puzzle game being that strictly againt character progression).

I think that's more on the level of inventory than character progression although I see what you mean.

Maybe to some extent there is confusion in the RPG world about the distinction between character development (in the literary sense) and character progression. It seems to me right now that the first one is the prime (and maybe only) prerequisite of an RPG and the second sort of tags along just because it is useful for promoting the first, what better way of showing for example that your character is aggressive by giving him the rage ability (eg D&D).

Balor · Jan 31, 2006

Well, if you have character developement not in terms of stats, but like in the books - developement of one's character as personality, multiple choices to fit many roles you can play according to your choice of personality, etc - it's an RPG.
Adventure games are either linear, have very linear nonlinearity, and do not allow playing a role of a character of your choice.
If they did - they should be called RPGs.
BTW, I kinda agree with devs of STALKER that it could be called RPG in theory - however, if we would be given a just selection of traits at beginning of the game (customizeable background), it would be closer to truth.
And besides, the social aspect of STALKER does not seem to be very developed, nonlinearity (and freeformity

) aside.

Solik · Jan 31, 2006

Would you consider a one-shot D&D adventure with no combat to be an RPG?

LCJr. · Jan 31, 2006

It should still allow the player to choose a class. Otherwise, it wouldn't be that much of an RPG.

"Class" is just an archaic holdover from the glory days of AD&D and I fail to see what it has to do with determing if a game's an RPG. I can think of several good RPG's and CRPG's that are classless i.e. GURPS and Fallout to name two. Likewise I can think of several FPS mods that include classes and definately aren't RPG's. I personally prefer the classless system since it lets me build the character as I picture them.

Is character progression necessary for a game to qualify as an RPG?

I don't feel it's required but it's been used in RPG's for so long it's become EXPECTED. It does give the player a sense of accomplishment and progress. But if the challenges are increasing as you "level" are you really making any progress?

edit> And depending on how the game is designed it can lead to some extreme boredom. For example a high level party constantly encountering virtually nil threat low level critters and having to waste time butchering them to get on with their mission.

One thing I was mulling over was doing away with progression as a linear expectation (do stuff, gain XP, level up), but rather treat the progression as a reward.

I've always preferred skills increase through use or training. If you keep using the skill it gets better. If you don't use it doesn't improve. Simple and logical. Training can be handled a variety ways(reputation, money, time, services) but should never be free.

More logical than spending a few weeks alone out in the wasteland killing radscorpions with a rifle and suddenly being a master at conversation.

Would you consider a one-shot D&D adventure with no combat to be an RPG?

Yes. I've been part of several PnP sessions that were zero combat. Gives you more time to actually roleplay your character rather than look up rules and throw dice.

Blahblah Talks · Jan 31, 2006

LCJr. said:
Likewise I can think of several FPS mods that include classes and definately aren't RPG's. I personally prefer the classless system since it lets me build the character as I picture them.

Indeed. Enemy Territory is a good example of a FPS with both classes and a MW-like skill progression system. But it's definately not an RPG. I too prefer non-class based systems, although for P&P role-playing they do hold some advantages. The thing I like most about MW was that your character stats, skills, etc. were determined by what you actually did. To be sure, level progression was influenced by your class (i.e. mix of major and minor skills), but that didn't stop your mage from becoming a Master Thief if he/she really wanted to.

Lumpy · Jan 31, 2006

LCJr. said:
It should still allow the player to choose a class. Otherwise, it wouldn't be that much of an RPG.

Click to expand...

"Class" is just an archaic holdover from the glory days of AD&D and I fail to see what it has to do with determing if a game's an RPG. I can think of several good RPG's and CRPG's that are classless i.e. GURPS and Fallout to name two. Likewise I can think of several FPS mods that include classes and definately aren't RPG's. I personally prefer the classless system since it lets me build the character as I picture them.

Fallout did have classes, determined by Skills, Attributes and Traits. I still consider them classes.

Greatatlantic · Jan 31, 2006

...This is more of a hypothetical situation, as I can't think of an offhand undisputable example of such an RPG...

I think Invisible War falls into that category. The first was widely thought of as an RPG. However, the developers removed player skills in the sequel, and made Biomods no longer permanent. The end result, a produce most no longer consider an RPG despite the presence of quests, choice, and dialogue trees.

I think you really need have some way to define your PC or your party in a unique way for a game to truly be a roleplaying game. Otherwise, you're not roleplaying, your Cloud-playing. At that point, call the game an adventure title or an action title and move on.

Now, how this unique defining of the character is done is negotiable. The classic DnD classes with attributes, skills, and feats is one way. As is the classless, versatile SPECIAL system. Heck, even Betrayal at Krondor lets you define your premade characters through both doing things and getting training throughout the world.

Voltare · Jan 31, 2006

3

What i thought was interesting, was the way the early ultimas did things : a set of choices at the beginning of the game, decided some of the quests and things all throughout the game.

deus · Jan 31, 2006

Things like combat and progression go back DnD 1 and its origins in wargaming and have been shackled to these conventions ever since. If you take out character progression, the distictions of roleplaying from other genres start to erode quickly. For example, others will point out the importance of choices and consequences, and while these are important, they are not exclusive to roleplaying. Plus, to be perfectly honest, the amount of actual RPGs drops to a handful if choices and consequences are the primary requirement.

Assume for a moment that Dark Messiah of Might and Magic was free roaming like Arx. What is the difference between the two? Story aside, what prevents it from being Arx 2 in spirit? Granted, Arx is combat heavy as it is, but if someone threw a character system on Outcast, would it be an RPG? The point is that without progression, roleplaying stops being distinct as a genre. In the case of Outcast, say you play a freshly trained SEAL and progressed non-trivially throughtout the game. Now replace that game with what shipped in the box, you play a veteran. Apart from that progression, there really isn't a difference between to the two.

DorrieB · Feb 1, 2006

EvoG said:
One thing I was mulling over was doing away with progression as a linear expectation (do stuff, gain XP, level up), but rather treat the progression as a reward. You know, I think I talked about this in that old thread regarding number-less roleplaying. Progression was treated as an event rather than just a gain of some arbitary measure of ability in swinging swords. Such as being an apprentice to a master thief. You'd have to get "noticed" by the master or in some way cross paths to begin your training.

In this way, its less about hammering forward to get stronger and stronger, necessitating stronger and stronger enemies, and more about dealing with the world with what you have, and then having increases in ability be clear and dramatic, if infrequent, and feel truly rewarding.

Oh, that would be brilliant. How about letting the character age as she trains, so that if you train with the master for 20 years you may have perfected your skills, but you're not as nimble as you used to be? And things have happened because you were busy training and didn't get involved?

Or is that a bit much?

LCJr. · Feb 1, 2006

Fallout did have classes, determined by Skills, Attributes and Traits. I still consider them classes.

And out of curiousity just what were these classes? Inquiring minds want to know.

Oh, that would be brilliant. How about letting the character age as she trains, so that if you train with the master for 20 years you may have perfected your skills, but you're not as nimble as you used to be?

Ever played Darklands(cRPG) or Traveller(PnP)? In both those systems character generation consisted of what you did before you became an adventurer. The trade off was the older you made your character the more skills they have but your stats detoriated with age.

EvoG · Feb 1, 2006

DorrieB said:
Oh, that would be brilliant.

Ha, my first reaction was that you were being derisive...shows how much Codex and DaC have influenced my iPersonality.tm. :D

DorrieB said:
How about letting the character age as she trains, so that if you train with the master for 20 years you may have perfected your skills, but you're not as nimble as you used to be? And things have happened because you were busy training and didn't get involved?

Or is that a bit much?

You know I'm on the fence about this. Peter Molyneux had a great idea with Project Ego involving aging before it became Fable, and I'm currently playing Pirates(more off than on) and I'm finding ultimately I dont care for the aging bit. Seeing that looming without much in the way of changing it is akin to a time limit by any other form in games. Timed puzzles or a timed quest. In fact its no different than the limit you have in fallout to get the water chip.

Though, a game played exclusively from the eyes of a wizard wanting to attain significant power, perhaps immortality, would be a great contextual reason to do this, and create a drive for the player to find ways of even permanently increasing his longevity. What would you do for immortality? The many years of gaining power to truly display the awe that an old powerful wizard can could be pretty cool.

Cheers

Norfleet · Feb 1, 2006

Solik said:
Would you consider a one-shot D&D adventure with no combat to be an RPG?

I think you'd have to be pretty contrived to say that a D&D adventure has no combat. It may be the case that the players chose not to engage in any combat, but there was still the possibility of combat, simply because the players reserve the option to resort to violence, however counterproductive it may be. And that's really the primary element of an RPG: Choice. If the player can make actual meaningful choices, you've got the basic underpinning of an RPG. In theory, those choices may even amount to something slightly more than simply losing. Almost anything can become an RPG in this regard.

Alternatively, there's the theory which states that an RPG is defined by the presence of a rocket. After all, it cannot very well be rocket-propelled with no rocket.

Solik · Feb 1, 2006

It is easy to have one-shot D&D adventures with no combat. Mysteries, trap-filled dungeons, and political intrigue (minus assassinations...) can generate interesting combat-free adventures (as long as they're short, which one-shots tend to be).

Lumpy · Feb 1, 2006

LCJr. said:
Fallout did have classes, determined by Skills, Attributes and Traits. I still consider them classes.

Click to expand...

And out of curiousity just what were these classes? Inquiring minds want to know.

They were, uhm, custom?

Spazmo · Feb 1, 2006

You could do an RPG without character progression, but you'd still need a character system. Consider any pen and paper RPG. For those who've never played one, XP (if there is any in the game) is usually not handed out during a game session. The GM will just keep track of accomplishments and monsters slain and so on and dish out the experience at the end of the play session so that things keep moving and people don't stop mid-adventure to level up. Now, suppose you played a one-shot game in something. You create characters of a certain level, play through that adventure, and basically shelve those characters. You don't get any experience or character progression since it was a one-shot, but you were certainly still playing an RPG.

But like I said, you'd better still have some kind of character system. One thing that's absolutely critical to an RPG is the ability to define your own character, to decide their gender, what they're good at, their personality, whatever. You don't need to let characters improve and get better at anything (though it's a good game mechanic and I can't see why you'd want to get rid of it), and I guess you can start off all PCs as the same character but then let them decide how that character evolves (I think Gothic does this to you), but if you do both--a predefined character with no options to personalize the character through progression--then you're missing something important to an RPG.

And that, I think, is the line between an RPG and an adventure game. An adventure game could, I think, have combat (action-adventure in the vein of Beyond Good & Evil or Psychonauts isn't all that rare). But adventure games will stick you with a predefined character with either no progression (Guybrush doesn't exactly learn much over the course of Secret of Monkey Island) or predefined progression (the developers have a pretty clear idea of what powers Raz gains in Psychonauts and design levels knowing that players will have access to a particular power). An RPG without combat is absolutely still an RPG. Sometimes, even more so since having to deal with stuff using words can offer more RP options than combat. The choice between being honest and duplicitous is probably more interesting from an RP standpoint than the choice between using a sword or fireballs.

Drakron · Feb 1, 2006

Sorry but as a DM I never did that and its my impression very few DM use that system since its retarded as hell.

LCJr. · Feb 1, 2006

Drakon to whom are you replying to and what exactly did you never do?

Balor · Feb 1, 2006

You could do an RPG without character progression, but you'd still need a character system.

Great point, Spazmo. Now tell that to developers of STALKER

.

Character Progression and the Minimal Elements of an RPG

Scholar

Erudite

Scholar

Arbiter

Arcane

Erudite

Scholar

Arcane

Scholar

Erudite

Arbiter

Arcane

Erudite

Liturgist

Liturgist

Liturgist

Erudite

Erudite

Moderator

Scholar

Arcane

Erudite

Arcane

Erudite

Arcane