Inflation in RPGs @ Hooked Gamers

Levelups aren't the only way of developing a character, though. My favorite PnP system for character development ever is the original Call of Cthulhu — you improve your skills by study or practice, and it happens a little bit at a time, all the time, and on a logarithmic curve (the better you are at something, the harder it is to improve it).

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
The problem here, is the meaningless battles that just exist to eat up time, not the progression in itself.

And that's - imho - just because combat sells so well. Action-RPGs are rather supported than non-action RPGs.

Everyone just uses the treadmill that an RPG without combat is no RPG.

Quickly I can think of only three skill based rpgs: Betrayal at krondor, Betrayal at Antara and Ultima online. Theres not much of them. ES series has skill% but it has levels too so I wouldnt call it skillbased. Magic candle might be skillbased but Im not sure for I havent played it.

The skillbased system works great in krondor. Its not the main focus of the game but you do get the ding feeling every now and then when you get more experienced. I was very unhappy to know that the sequel return to krondor used levels instead. Just for that I didnt play it until 10 years later.

Nowadays all rpgs are level based like its som law of physics or somthing. Its not bad but still id like too see som skillbased systems too. My first pen&paper rpg runequest was skillbased so I have a special lean for it.

Concerning the prevalence of level-based over skill-based CRPG systems: it may just be lack of imagination on the designers’ part, but levels are easier to play-balance for; especially as a standard single-player game can be designed around a finite amount of levels. Being 'package deals' I imagine levels also make it easier to balance PvP in multiplayer, those games generally depend on a limited number of character builds.

I played Call of Cthulhu back in the ‘80s, great system but awfully difficult to balance in a CRPG. Although I’d certainly be interested to see how a CoC style system would work in a continuous/persistent world style RPG (not your standard MMORPG!).

Does anyone know how the new Warhammer MMORPG works? The P'n'P game never had levels (unless you count "basic career" and "advanced career" as levels).

I simply loved BG1 - even though it has very slow leveling and at the end you're just around level 7-9, depending if you've installed Tales of the Sword Coast or not.
BG2, on the other hand, is a real bore, at least in terms of leveling. Midway by the game and definetely at the end of BG2 and in TOB you and your party members are nearing demigod status - and can kill anything - given a few tries. The combat stops being exciting as it is just a grind to became victorius. I mean - timestop etc. + eathquake will get even the hardest eneimies down. There's no challenge in that, I feel.

I have mainly played D&D games, so I can't comment much on other types of leveling. I agree, though, that the way Diablo 1+2 handled leveling were great

Originally Posted by Squeek
I think the writer has a point. Leveling up should be a big deal. And it gets boring if your characters become invincible.

It also gets boring if you level up, but don't really get anything for it. I'm replaying BG1 right now with a Cleric/Ranger and so far, the Ranger level (level 3 now I think) ups haven't given me anything outside of some extra HP's (which ARE useful).

There was a game several years back that had sort of a dual leveling system (The name escapes me unfortunately!). IIRC the game wasn't that great overall, which is why I probably can't remember it, but it was unique.

You had something lip XP that related simply to you improving your HP and a lesser degree to your attributes (strength, dex, etc.), but you had another type of XP (called something else), that had nothing to do with fighting monsters, but rather finishing quests. With it, you could then train in specific abilities, and IIRC also increase your attributes some.

So you didn't have to go around killing random beasts just to be strong enough to take on the next level, but you could still beef up a bit by it.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
It also gets boring if you level up, but don't really get anything for it. I'm replaying BG1 right now with a Cleric/Ranger and so far, the Ranger level (level 3 now I think) ups haven't given me anything outside of some extra HP's (which ARE useful).

I have just a similar experience with NWN1 : In the first campaign (I'm in act two now), there's only ONE additional skill the character gets … And talents only I think every three levels …

I still don't understand most of the system, but it doesn't give me the impression of being "rewarding". I'd rather call it "sparse" instead.

So, I do understand why Dhurin writes:

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Anyway, I disagree. Anyone remember one of the common complaints against the original Baldur's Gate? Only 8 level-ups, so limited opportunity to build your character. Slowing growth (within limits) makes a worse game, not a better one.

With only ONE talent per level-up, building a character seems quite difficult fopr my taste. I'd rather see two, to show just a little bit more rewards …