Gaming: Levels of Separation

[HaemishM]

What would baby Jesus do?

[Morfiend]

Very valid points and food for thought, but the entire thing is skewed by one of our favorite games. UO in the "good old days".

UO WAS all end game. I mean, most of us macroed. Up to 7x GM, THEN started playing that charicter. There was no "ding" or spawn camping for exp. Yeah, people would skill at the ogre lords, or bone magi, or sit at the bone knight "Wall". I guess that could be considered camping, but it wasnt really a "Level Grind" per say.

In UO you maxed your character, then you "Played" the game, like you where talking about. You would PVP, *Gasp* Role play, run a tavern, build a town, hunt for items. I think when you take away the level grind, THEN you are left with the game.

Then came EQ, it changed all that. during my time in UO I spent a LOT of time trying to max my character to PVP. and you could clearly see a point. Max character, better at pvp. Then I took the plunge to try this new EQ game.

"Wow a first person UO, this is cool." how quickly I was proved wrong. PVP, only if you turn red but then I can group with blue friends and stuff. Ok, well lets level.
"Whats the point of camping this spawn for hours to level" I would ask some one sitting with me. "so you can level" they would say. And I would ask "Why do you need to level?" they would come back at me with "So I can fight harder monsters". Again I would ask "Why do you want to fight harder monsters?" and they would reply "So I can get more exp to level again".

This was baffeling to me. To me I wanted to level so I could get better at PVP, but they just wanted to level. To this day I dont understand it really, but they onlt answer I can come up with, is the same one you did. To these type of people, leveling *IS* the game. And thats not a game I want to play, hell, thats not a game most of us here want to play.

We want content and fun. We want excitement and PVP. To those people a great game consists of Ding, gratz. Rinse repeate.
Yeah, I know, its more than that, but when you break it down, we want fun, they want the "Joy button" as Haemish said.

[Dravalen]

I think it goes a little beyond that. I've yet to find a singleplayer game that had a tedious grind the way MMOGs do. I've always noticed that alot of players end up leaving after reaching top level. The whole level thing is kinda like a social ranking. You see a whole bunch of players who are "better" then you so you feel the need to level in order to be "better" then them.

[WayAbvPar]

I mentioned this in the Game Dev forum as well, but it bears repeating here (forgive the cut and paste)-

Leveling in PnP is a byproduct of the interacting with the world and the storyline. Leveling in a MMOG IS the storyline, and the primary focus most of the time.

Part of the fun in PnP is not just shinys and XPs (although that is part of it)- it is a sense of your character in the world; fame, fortune, and noteriety that come from performing heroic (or anti-heroic) deeds. Titles, death sentences, etc- your character is a living record of his previous accomplishments and actions.

MMOGs need to find ways to validate characters beyond sheer numbers. Things like the UO Fame/Karma system (where titles were granted) are a good starting point. Ideally there would be an in-game mechanism for other players to know about your individual achievements (once they are significant enough) other than the ever-increasing # next to your level. Think of it as a merit badge or some sort- a "I survived Lower Guk, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt" entry on your character sheet that is viewable by others.

The point is to NOT make leveling the point of the game- it should happen naturally as you explore the world and find your own 'storyline' to follow. Some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the players- we (as a group) have certain expectations and tactics that we have learned from playing these games over the years, so what is the first thing we try to do in a new game? Apply the same tactics (specifically camping) to the new game, and never try to interact with it in a different way.

Developers don't get off scotfree, however. By making a steep, gradiated advancement curve, they almost force players to keep leveling in order to see all of the content. As a lowbie, I couldn't just explore the world in EQ without getting turned into a greasespot by mobs I had no hope of defeating (and even worse, would continue to have no hope for months and months at my rate of play).

Flatten the advancement curve. Instead of making it steeply vertical, broaden it. Experienced characters should have more skills to choose from, better loot, more experience (in tactics), etc. They shouldn't be exponentially more powerful than a total n00b.

As Haemish pointed out, there are players who enjoy leveling, and camping, and loot whoring. They are content to play the same damned game over and over, wrapped in a new shiny package ever year or two.

Some of us want more than that.

[Xilren's Twin]

People always find something to keep score with, so if it's not race to level X, it will be cash earned, or kills made, or items etc etc.  Despite the potential of massive grindage, SWG has the closest thing to a levelless game since well.. UO (shocking i know).  So what do we see people doing there?  PvPing for faction shinies, doing quests for more shineys, running business and wallowing piles o cash, running player towns that can't have real government, training pet, buying vehicles etc etc.  And people are still running out of something to actually DO on a daily basis.  Sure, they may be a fairly wide scope of things to do, but they all seem so...shallow.

IMHO, what I would want to see if such a levelless game is depth.  But many of the things I would like lots of players would hate as it pushes the mmorpg away from a fun game towards more of a world state.  Fer example: geographic diversity enforced by, ick, long travel times.

Exploration of a environment thats new to you in a mmorpg setting has been one of the most enjoyable parts for me.  I fully admit that the main reason I try to get in every beta possible or free trial is simply to see NEW stuff (even though most of the games themselves leave me cold rapidly).  New lands, new monsters, new items, you name it.  That feel of "cool, something new" discovery is it's own sort of DING GRATZ bit of pavlovian reaction for me.  Problem is, it's so easy to see ALL there is to see in most games.  It used to mean something in early EQ to travel from Qeynos to Freeport b/c you had to do it by foot and the route wasn't exactly safe.  Not only that, but the journey itself was it's own type of reward as you got to see a variety of areas and mobs.  I remember  pickup groups would form as a sort of mini caravans to try and assist new players simply from point A to B.  And god, remember the boat rides.  Waiting for and travelling on the boat between continent would probably not be considered fun by most players, yet, it helped lend meaning to your characters existance in the gameworld based on what you had done (where you had gone) vs simply what level you were.

But of course, most games caved to idea of making the "game" part more fun, which means removing annoyances like travel time b/c it's simply something preventing you from getting to your "prime leveling spot".  So now it's easy to teleport all over the place.

Flip it around though; you could actually design a game in which travel restrictions play a meaningful role.  Take the caravan idea one step further and make it something players can work with.  If geographic areas have meaning, you could do thing like this mountainous region is where you can mine ore, but the swampy region has useful mineral X;  now players can decide to become merchant by simply moving resource A from the mountains to the swamps, and resource X back again.  Make the travel something you do, complete with challenges and dangers, and manipulate the game economy to make it worthwhile for people to want to do.  You want to earn some cash, experience, and see the signs of the world, sign on a a caravan guard; it's like the navy.

Dang, this got long.  One other short point; it should not be possible to know the entire gameworld (be it areas, items, mobs, etc) ever.  More later maybe.

Xilren

[LanTheWarder]

I've heard this a lot and I honestly want to know, is there an RPG game released MMOG or standard single player RPG that doesn't have levels in one form or another?

[ajax34i]

It's actually quite easy to imagine such a game:  simply make death a one-shot thing, like with guns RL; whoever attacks first, wins.

What would I do in such a game?

1.  Explore the world.

2.  Roleplay, perhaps join a faction and thus get a role with them.

3a.  Cancel sub when I get bored, or
3b.  Keep sub active so I can blow off RL steam with quick shoot-em-up sessions whenever I feel like.

Note, however, that "live happily ever after" is NOT fun.  What makes DnD fun at all levels is that at the end of an adventure, another begins.

Your no-levels game above absolutely depends on the ability of the devs to make me repeat steps 1 or 2, by presenting new areas or having an extremely active political/faction system.

I would be extremely interested in a MMO game structured this way:

1.  Hundreds of different areas, none connected to each other.

2.  Monthly subscription gives you 1 account with 1 char slot.

3.  Every month you're invited to play in one area, with another 20 or so players.  Log on, see what class the other players there need, create it, and play the adventure or specific quest in that area, for the month.  Generally it can be level-less, or if for example the adventure is for level 14 chars, you can be granted level 14 but no XP for the duration.

4.  At the end of the month, or when the quest ends, you lose access to the zone, your character gets wiped, and you get invited to another adventure/zone.

.....

I guess kinda like a MMO grouping of NWN modules.

[Soukyan]

I mean, most of us macroed. Up to 7x GM, THEN started playing that charicter. There was no "ding" or spawn camping for exp. Yeah, people would skill at the ogre lords, or bone magi, or sit at the bone knight "Wall". I guess that could be considered camping, but it wasnt really a "Level Grind" per say.

It was still an advancement scheme. If you weren't "skilling up", what would you do? Would you still go tame animals? Would you still mine and make products? Or were those only done because the skills were available and had an advancement scheme tacked on?

[Arnold]

I was fortunate enough in high school to hook up with a D&D group that ran campaigns and not modules.  Every adventure was tailored to the characters and we never did stuff just to level (unless your character died, and then you got a few solo adventures with a new character to get a couple levels on him).  Even though the adventures had plenty of combat, there was still politics, intrigue, and plots against fellow players.  To boot, this group wasn't even a hardcore roleplaying group, just one that had outgrown hack and slash.

Then while in college in the early 90s, before graphical browsers and before the general public got access to the internet, a friend introduced me to MUDs.  At first I was very excited about the idea.  He gave me a list of them and I settled on one that seemed good.

Soon I found myself doing the same quests and killing the same monsters over and over.  I thought, WTF am I doing here?  This is mindless BS!  So I quit, not much after level 10.

I tried my hand at a few more and it was the same every time.  On one that was supposedly a roleplaying server, I went into hardocre RP mode and just played my character and didn't attempt to level at all.  I figured an admin might notice me and give me some more power because I was playing the game the way I thought they wanted it to be played, but no dice.

Finally I quit MUDs altogether and it wasn't until UO that I was drawn back in.  I don't think I would have lasted long there either, if a certain PK hadn't become my nemesis.  I hated PKs at first.  I wanted to grow more powerful and get my revenge.

AHHHHH!  A PURPOSE!  A PURPOSE TO THIS LEVELING!

And that was that.  Then I stuck around, built up my character, got into some roleplaying, pvp, etc.  I saw the beauty that was the UO sandbox, where ANYTHING you wanted to do was possible.

Siege Perilous was the next step in UO evolution.  While I hated the RoT system at first, I finally saw the value in it.  You could powergame it to a certain extent, but mainly you just PLAYED and gained skill.  Everyone just jumed right into the game and did what they wanted to do.  The RoT system did need to be tweaked a bit, but the idea was sound.

The only problem with RoT is that people joining after the initial crop of players got going had a harder time because their advancement was restrained by time while the vet Siege players had maxed out characters.

Long ago, I envisioned a game with no advancement.  Everyone was a hero of some sort.  You'd just tailor your character at creation, and allow for some tweaking afterward and then get started.  You'd need other, non-transferrable mechanisms to keep the player tied to the character.  Perhaps land, titles, etc.

Any game that is based on leveling is no game for me.  Eventually you become level 50 and are still killing rats, only they have different stats and skins.

[Arnold]

One thing I forgot to add is that a game without advancement would need some kind of resource that would be a point of conflict.  In UO, we had gold.  On AC Darktide it was leveling areas.

Conflicts over resources lead to guild conflicts and politics.  Of course, the AC example wouldn't be applicable.

Also, every game should have players mainly using player made equipment, full loot drops, and item decay.  This keeps the tradesmen thriving.

[Mr. Average]

I think this is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding, Haemish, and I think your friend is more right than you are.

Exploring an MMORPG is not (necessarily) about running around in a computer or handcrafted terrains looking at things. Just going around looking at things, or even solving static quests you can look up on web pages isn’t a challenge. To me, a game should be a challenge – some silly goal that isn’t obvious how to reach. When leveling, you are exploring in a way the game mechanics of the combat, and as you level the task gradually becomes more complex. On level 1 you have perhaps a very basic sword and only the ability to swing it. This matches well with your (supposedly) complete ignorance about the game. At level 100 (or whatever), you have received a ton of powers that must be balanced, and must perhaps work well with a group to be able to survive an encounter. It may not feel harder at level 70 than at level 10, since you have the experience of 60 levels more at level 70, though. If players were thrown right into level 100 in the beginning of the game, most people would find it very, very hard to play.

A more productive way of looking at levels and leveling would be to say that the game, at level 1, threw you a puzzle: “Use this power you’ve got called ‘swinging sword’ to kill the bunny.” It's not a very hard puzzle, and you most likely solve it. Then the game says, ok, so you master this, what if I make it slightly harder but give you another degree of freedom? Then you have to master this degree of freedom as well. As the degrees of freedom increase, optimizing over the set increase in difficulty. It is this continuous increase in the degrees of freedom you have to optimize over that makes it fun to level.

In this context, the endgame is just where you have used up all the puzzles created by the designers, and they hope that by pitting players against players or somesuch the situation will be dynamic enough (in a rock-paper-scissors way) to keep people amused. It works in RTSes and FPSes so there is no reason it can't here?

Dave Rickey is onto this in his Skotos column about "Real Intelligence vs. Artificial Stupidity". (He arrives at this after a page of discussing AI, for some reason.) He seems to think that MMOs aren't necessarily good puzzle games, and I agree that where the "treadmill" feeling emerge this may be true. In general I think that the problem is more that the puzzle in mastering the combat system of your first MMORPG is too similar to your later MMORPGs, thus making the puzzle too easy and fostering the feeling that you must kill this monster so many times to get on with it.

I think it was Raph that somewhere asked if the MMO burnout syndrome would cause people to stay in the MMO market only a few years before moving on. I think this will only be a problem if the puzzles of the games are too similar. As such, I think SWG was a very good contribution to MMOs - the economic game was something entirely different and entertained me for months. (Thanks, by the way.) I’m now into Shadowbane, where I hope the dynamic of the PvP situation will provide the extra spice. We’ll see.

- Mr. Average

[Evangolis]

What needs to be done is an extension of the rule "Lore must be supported by code to be meaningful to the player".  Instead of advancing your character's goals by leveling, developers need to create a game where players advance thier character's goals by advancing a storyline, as is the case in a good PnP campaign.  Character power should hinge on the state of the world, not the state of the character.  In that case, you can go directly to the endgame(s).

[daveNYC]

This isn't really the best thought out idea, but my feelings at this moment, are that slicing the character's HPs would be a goodl place to start.

The fact that a level one character can be killed by a head cold, while a level xx seems to have as much health as an M1A1 seems to be one of the core items that makes level based games suck much ass.

I'm sure that other things need changing, but to me that seems like a key place to start.

[kuro]

Treadmills are a lot like slot machines.  Pulling a lever really isn't fun.  If you do the math you know that you aren't going to really win anything if you keep playing the slot machine.  However, when you pull the level you are rewarded with soothing sounds from the machine and a chance of winning something big  (i.e. in MMORPG terms camping for a rare  item).  So people spend hours and hours and tons of money pulling that lever and are frequently rewarded with meaningless rewards (i.e. they win back half the money they've lost).

If you want to understand why slot machines and treadmills are successful game design then you need to read up on behavioral psychology, particularly classic and operant conditioning techniques.

When your making a subscription based game, the goal is not to make a fun game. The goal is to make a game that people will continue to play for years so that you can extract the subscription fees from their pockets.  

If you eliminate the treadmill then people will simply explore all the content ,will feel that they've essentially beat the game, and quit the game during the free month.  

The problem with end game in MMORPGs is that eventually the players realize how boring it is to keep pulling the lever over and over and they go on to something else.

[ajax34i]

If the content can be explored in a month.

Treadmills are easy money for the devs.  Getting rid of them and developing a game with enough content to actually satisfy the powergamers is a lot more work, for the same buck.

Fortunately, one MMOG addiction seems to be sufficient to immunize most people against more of the same.  So hopefully eventually the playerbase for treadmills will reach 0.

[Margalis]

I've heard this a lot and I honestly want to know, is there an RPG game released MMOG or standard single player RPG that doesn't have levels in one form or another?

That isn't asking the right question.

The question is, is there ANY single player RPG where the player spends the vast majority of their time doing nothing BUT levelling? (Maybe Dragon Warrior 2 for Nintendo...)

Having levels isn't the problem. The problem is I've been in the same area for 8 hours, I've done all there is to do there, I've solved all the puzzles and mastered all the challenges, but I have to stay there another 8 hours to become powerful enough to move on. (Or have enough money to move on, etc)
---
Then again, a long single player RPG is 80-100 hours. MMORPGs are supposed to be in the thousands. You just CAN'T make thousands of hours of content. Instead you have to rely on players interacting with each other, players competing (directly or indirectly), players creating content (which never works, sorry), levelling, etc.

How do you write a series like the Wheel of Time that is what, 10 books or so? Answer: lots of filler.

How do you make a game that is supposed to last for thousands of hours but requires almost zero skill? Answer: lots of filler.

Steep levelling is just an easy filler mechanism.

If you look at other games that have long lives, they typically have a very fun core gameplay and/or competitive/challenge element. MMORPGS have neither.

The single player games people typically keep coming back to are games that are fundamentally enjoyable to play. Once you see static content once it's done, but you can always go back to fun gameplay. Most MMORPGs are a pain in the ass to play.

[Romp]

We were discussing MMOG’s, and I was bemoaning the lack of good PVP games anywhere on the horizon.

www.darkfallonline.com

DF has full pvp, skill gain like UO so no levelling, as well as siege system like SB.

PvP system is meant to be skilful, like an FPS, you have to aim your spells etc like in AC.  Open beta hasnt started yet but a new website is coming on Monday hopefully with new info on beta.

I only play MMORPGs for pvp and really there is so much potential there, there have been only a few games that have even got it partially right, the 'failure' of previous games with pvp content has led people to think pvp cant work in a MMORPG but when you think about the number of people playing FPS and RTS online against other people you wonder why game companies insist on churning out EQ clone MMORPGs with little or no pvp or dedicated pvp servers with little or no thought put into the pvp system.  Playing against people is so much more fun than fighting AI.  Well for a lot of people anyway.

[Typhon]

If the karate kid didn't have to paint fences and do the other crap that miagi (sp, whatever) had him do, if he just suddenly said, 'whoa, i know kung fu', what kind of story does that make?  Does anyone watch that story?  The part you aren't getting is that these games are built upon a genre where the lowly student strives and struggles to eventually become the master.  If this core concept doesn't seem fun to you, you are probably in the wrong genre.

I'm not saying that the current method of leveling is fun, but I AM saying that humans understand at a gut level that anything worthwhile requires an expenditure of effort.  Also, I'm saying that you don't get it because you're refusing to be immersed in whatever game you are playing.  You are burnt out on the drama and grandeur these worlds are supposed to provide.  Your friend isn't.

[Xilren's Twin]

If the karate kid didn't have to paint fences and do the other crap that miagi (sp, whatever) had him do, if he just suddenly said, 'whoa, i know kung fu', what kind of story does that make?  Does anyone watch that story?  The part you aren't getting is that these games are built upon a genre where the lowly student strives and struggles to eventually become the master.  If this core concept doesn't seem fun to you, you are probably in the wrong genre.

Bzzzz. Wrong answer.  The core concept of these games is supposed to be PnP based rpg's.  Any guess what?  They are FUN at any level b/c it's not about simply training by going "wax on, wax off" for 70 hours, it's about having fun WHILE training.  Having adventures is the goal, the fact that your character learns and grows while having said adventure is a byproduct, not the focus.  Current MMORPG's reverse this which is what most here are complaining about.

I'm not saying that the current method of leveling is fun, but I AM saying that humans understand at a gut level that anything worthwhile requires an expenditure of effort.  Also, I'm saying that you don't get it because you're refusing to be immersed in whatever game you are playing.  You are burnt out on the drama and grandeur these worlds are supposed to provide.  Your friend isn't.

That;s fine if i actually wanted to learning something in real life; when im trying to blow off steam after work, sorry, not interested unless the effort itself is fun.   BTW, drama and grandeur in a "ding gratz" world?  What the heck game are you playing b/c I've seem most of em and that describes none of them beyond 2 weeks.  There is no drama in whack a mole to leetness.  Perhaps you meant the drama of a naked corpse run? :-p

Xilren

[Dark Vengeance]

The part you aren't getting is that these games are built upon a genre where the lowly student strives and struggles to eventually become the master.

I understand and appreciate the sentiment in your post, but the real issue is that most MMOG players are accustomed to having narrative, quests, and a semi-linear plot thrust upon them. Let's face it, most of the mouth-breathers come almost exclusively from a single-player RPG background....and as the genre ages, it will only become moreso. The PnP experience gets lauded frequently on message boards, but it often has about as much validity as the 'I've been playing since they started typing the design docs beeyotch' type of bravado.

In addition, as any NWN player can tell you, most DMs suck ass at running a campaign....the quality storyteller who knows how to balance action, roleplay, challenge, and a compelling story is rare indeed. So even a big chunk of PnP experience for some folks ends up as little more than 'let's roll the funny-looking dice and change the numbers on our character sheets'. As a result, most players shrug their shoulders when they are asked 'what do YOU want to do?'.....they are just not prepared for a game where the story doesn't come to them.

The levelling grind is a natural result....what else is there to do but make the numbers higher? Most players don't understand the concept of portraying their character, let alone just living as that character would live and letting stories unfurl before them. So, they go out and look for the fastest way to make the numbers go up....first levels or skills, then item properties, then their bank balances.

In a way, I liken it to the difference between being a reader and a writer. Most of these folks are used to being readers, so when they get a book full of blank pages, many can think of nothng better to do than fill the pages for the sake of filling pages, so they can get a book with a different colored cover....because having that means status in the community, and a means to differentiate themselves from others.

Players haven't got lofty goals to achieve, because if it's too hard, some people just get frustrated and quit....they prefer goals where success is inevitable, and merely a question of persistence.

It's as much as issue with the players as it is with the devs....the focus is on giving them something to read, instead of giving them something worth writing about, so to speak.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[shiznitz]

Another problem is that we are playing these games on computers and computers do one thing really, really well: crunch numbers. The timeless games do not involve number crunching in a pure sense. Checkers, chess, poker, backgammon, etc. certainly require probability knowledge to become good, but not to just play.  It only makes sense that a computer game is going to involve numbers because that is what a computer does best.  Hiding the numbers only makes playes frustrated because the players know the numbers are there even if they cannot see them.  Counting is one of the most basic skills we learn as kids. We are trained to see a number and immediately think of the numbers above and below it.

A computer game without numbers will not be fun, unless that game is a computer replica of a real game that is fun like the standards cited above. Putting backgammon on the computer doesn't change that game at all. It just changes your choices of opponents.

A Tale in the Desert is a special animal. I haven't played it so I cannot attest to how numbers do or do not affect gameplay. It is impossible to know whether the game or the lack of distribution explains the small player base.

[kuro]

The solution to MMORPGs is content. So much content that it's impossible to explore it all.  However, how do you produce that content economically?

Outsource it to India!

No seriously.

Instead of trying to sell people on just a single MMORPG, think about selling them a network of games.  Use cable TV as your model.   You have a common portal that offers basic chat, message boards, guild tools, etc.   From there you can launch into say a typical MMORPG where you make friends and play the treadmill.

When you get bored with the treadmill, you go back to the portal and play another game with tie-ins to the MMORPG. For example, you could have every casino game available where you play with virtual money that your character in the MMORPG gained.  You can have real crafting games that aren't limited by the clunky interface in your MMORPG.   You can have no level pvp games where you fight and win titles, money, xp, etc. for your character in your MMORPG.  You can have classic single player style rpgs where you play by yourself where your starting character is based off of the character in your MMORPG and your MMORPG character gains stuff when you finish the game.  

The goal of all these games with Tie-ins, is to actually give people stuff that is fun to do so that they don't just burn out on your MMORPG.  You sell them on a gaming community rather than on any single game.  You fund it based on subscriptions and in game advertising just like cable companies do.   You can have premium games as well where you pay more to play them.  You don't even have to limit yourself to games. You can add in movies where you watch them with your guild mates. Etc. Etc.

A small group of developers isn't going to be able to pull something like this off. However, a sony or a microsoft ought to be able to get it done.

[Alluvian]

Just like PvE'ers overgeneralize PvPers as d00dz you are over generalizing PvEers as pavlovian dogs.  Those are the cliche stereotypes.

I don't think many people fall fully into either category.  I generally like the levels in EQ, but they are just too slow at the end.  When my tiny guild gets together on their once a week foray into eq we never take exp gain into consideration unless someone is really close to a level.  And when you play once a week at high level, full moons are more common than levels.  We just decide what would be FUN.  We did veksar because we had never been there and wanted to see it one day.  Last week we did a part of the beastlord epic that was a good challenge and quite fun for one group.

When leveling I did fall into some ruts where I gamed to level, but those were the exceptions and not the rule.  I spent a few boring levels at the aviak village, I spent some boring levels camped out in cazic thule.  Most of the time we went to the place that was the most FUN for our level range in our guild.

If the game didn't have levels, frankly we would have tired of it sooner.  We would have seen all the zones early on and then been pretty bored.  With levels the role your character plays also changes over time.  That can be good or bad.  Clerics go from a tank that can heal and hit a little to a bandage.  But enchanters, necros, rangers, paladins, etc... all grow substantially in their abilities over time.  Not just bigger numbers, but new emergent styles of play.

Should they all be given right up front instead?  That is a valid argument.  I don't really know if I agree with that.  I find my most fun in MMOGs to be the early phases where you see the powergamers with things you don't yet have but want to get.  It is like the christmass toy catalog.  As you play the game (and I do mean PLAY, not grind) you get the toys.  But once you get them you inevitably realize they are not as fun as they looked.  Not as fun as you imagined.  If they gave them all to me right away they would not be that fun.

I realize that IS your argument.  That the games are not that fun and that levels are a way of disguising that problem.  But I do have fun during the early phases nontheless.  And it keeps me interested longer than most games.

My list of single player games I was done with never to play again after the first week is probably up to 20+ right now.  I don't see those as superior to mmogs really.  Just different.  One is intense fun that burns itself out, the other is more metered cautious fun that lasts for a few months.  My wallet actually prefers the latter.

[HaemishM]

Good replies, everyone. I have a very specific conclusion to the question in my mind, and wanted to see if other people had the same idea, would come to the same conclusion or if I'm just an army of one.

Keep 'em coming. I plan on writing a follow-up story to this, and probably quoting some of you in the article before offering my own conclusion.

[Xilren's Twin]

In addition, as any NWN player can tell you, most DMs suck ass at running a campaign....the quality storyteller who knows how to balance action, roleplay, challenge, and a compelling story is rare indeed. So even a big chunk of PnP experience for some folks ends up as little more than 'let's roll the funny-looking dice and change the numbers on our character sheets'. As a result, most players shrug their shoulders when they are asked 'what do YOU want to do?'.....they are just not prepared for a game where the story doesn't come to them.

But even without DM's, we can still do better that static worlds that never change. Camping is only possible b/c the camp is always there, no matter how long you kill the mobs over and over.  And SWG's points of interest are far to simplistic and generic to hold much meaning (not to mention too prevelant).  Leveling for level's sake becomes the focus when there nothing your character can ever do that everyone else can't also do; how interesting is a story that everyone has already read?  A story is noteable for having a begining middle and end for one thing; these game only have middles.

Let me give you an example and see if you think this would be helpful or harmful.  Take original EQ.  What if, each of the original zones (other than cities and connecting lands) had a definate starting and ending states, and once you had done them, you were finished with that zone.  So, you could "do" crushbone, but once you have defeated emperor crush and abassador Divin(?), thats it.  No more Crushbone for you.  Not only that, but that zone would be designed for a level range, say 5-10 so that by the time you were done you would be level 10 assuming you did all the main part of that area's plotlines (freeing the prisoners, killing the religious leaders, taking out the emperor and his generals, finding the dark elf link and killing their ambassador, find evidence of a traitor).  And each of those plotline may results in a pointer to another zone to follow overall arching storylines.  Do the same, for Befallen, Guk, Kedge Keep, etc etc.  That would make each of theose zone much more like a mini dnd module with no DM required.  (Obviously, this would require some form of instancing and ability to track progress by character/group).  If you give each level range multiple choices of adventure zones to choose from, you would actually end up with characters who had actual different experiences playing in the game world.  Would some still choose zones purely based on the perceived "best" place to go; sure and that's ok.  But it gives more meaning to those who want it.

How many people would preferred that approach from the beginning? Since the LDoN expansion brings some of this to the table I do think some people at SOE see the desire.  This wholly artificial approach does limit content reusability, but I think even thats overcomable in certain ways.  You could reuse a geographic area to have different version of the same place, i.e. once the orce get cleared out of crushbone, perhaps the dark elves and their troll allies take up residence with their own plotlines...

One other way to look at it, of all the variety of custom designed zone that eq has now, how many players would you say have visited over even 50% of the available zones?

Xilren (man i should be working)

[ajax34i]

So, you could "do" crushbone, but once you have defeated emperor crush and abassador Divin(?), thats it.

Would be cool, except there would be two problems:

1.  Crushbone would have to be much bigger than it is to sustain levelling from 5 to 10 in such a way that the player doesn't grind inside the zone, and actually "does" the zone.  It still comes back down to content, and the fact that players consume it faster than the devs can make it.

2.  What if you fail/die at some point within the zone?  Do you get expelled, or do you get the chance to retry?  And are repeated retries = grinding?

Somewhat on a tangent, but related to this "No more Crushbone for you" idea... I was wondering a while back if it would be possible to implement a "roving content" MMOG:  Players are at the forefront of the NPC mass; they go forth from the city and hunt in the wilderness.  After a while the wilderness is depleted of high level monsters and only newbie monsters spawn, so players have to go further and further out.  After a while more, the NPC city moves itself to where the wilderness was, and players lose access to the area the city left.  Rinse and repeat.  

Applied to EQ, eventually the NPC "frontier" would move out of the original lands into Kunark, then Velious, etc.   A newbie that buys the game during the Velious era would start in a Velious city and never see the old crap that no one visits anymore.  Velious mobs would gradually lower in level / get hunted out till the entire Velious continent is a newbie area, then the NPC civilization moves in, builds major metropolises, and blocks access.

Like the Wild West.

It wouldn't be levelling for the sake of levelling anymore, as you can just be ahead of the crowd and fight the tough mobs if you're high level (till they're extinct), or stay somewhere in the middle and only visit areas after they've been delevelled / hunted out to the point where the mobs, while new/never-seen-before-by-you, are of your level.

[WayAbvPar]

Let me give you an example and see if you think this would be helpful or harmful. Take original EQ. What if, each of the original zones (other than cities and connecting lands) had a definate starting and ending states, and once you had done them, you were finished with that zone. So, you could "do" crushbone, but once you have defeated emperor crush and abassador Divin(?), thats it. No more Crushbone for you. Not only that, but that zone would be designed for a level range, say 5-10 so that by the time you were done you would be level 10 assuming you did all the main part of that area's plotlines (freeing the prisoners, killing the religious leaders, taking out the emperor and his generals, finding the dark elf link and killing their ambassador, find evidence of a traitor). And each of those plotline may results in a pointer to another zone to follow overall arching storylines. Do the same, for Befallen, Guk, Kedge Keep, etc etc. That would make each of theose zone much more like a mini dnd module with no DM required. (Obviously, this would require some form of instancing and ability to track progress by character/group). If you give each level range multiple choices of adventure zones to choose from, you would actually end up with characters who had actual different experiences playing in the game world. Would some still choose zones purely based on the perceived "best" place to go; sure and that's ok. But it gives more meaning to those who want it.

I like this idea. especially the idea that each character may have a different experience. You could mix and match this with some class or race specific drops in some of the zones (you would have to balance it so there was something there for several classes, to get groups to want to play together there), to help encourage the diversity.

I think EQ COULD be played like this now...if one could find a group to do it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the player base (at least when I played) was all about leveling as fast as possible, so every character followed the same pathway (level to teens, hit Oasis until 18 or so, then head to LOIO...). There are so many zones that are completely empty in EQ that it is just sad. Perhaps taking the numbers away from the players would help encourage diversity? If some pointy-headed jackass didn't have the numbers to plug into a spreadsheet and pinpoint the optimum advancement path (which would be published on the 'net for all the catasses to enjoy), then people might be more encouraged to go have adventures in the other zones, instead of grinding for the next DING.

[Snowspinner]

Community? Friends? Guildmates?

[Zaphkiel]

What would baby Jesus do?

   Treadmills, in one form or another, are probably always going to be part of mmogs.  That doesn't mean they can't be more fun, less mind numbing, and that other things can't be included.  Personally, I see the future of mmogs incorporating multiple treadmills, not none.  Short term, medium term, long term, and really long term treadmills.  What if, for example, getting one character up to full PvP power was a short term goal (treadmill), engaging in PvP was done in the context of expanding the political power of your group, tribe, whatever, as a medium term treadmill, etc etc.   That way, there woudn't be a rut.  There would be multiple tracks, any of which could be played or worked on at any given time.  No one would be forced to work on all of them, allowing guilds to offload certain aspects (PvP, crafting, gold farming, etc) to those who really enjoy that part.  
    That would be fun for me.

[Rasix]

Snowspinner edits his post and makes mine irrelevant.  I guess we don't need that priest to exercise the Sloth demon out of him.

[Snowspinner]

Snowspinner edits his post and makes mine irrelevant.  I guess we don't need that priest to exercise the Sloth demon out of him.

Yeah, I posted it, then the better answer occurred to me, and I decided to wait and see where Haemish was going before disagreeing.

[Daeven]

Here is the MMOG problem domain as I see it. There is an expectation from prior experience that RPG’s are in one war or another about ‘gaining power’ and then ‘beating something’ – let’s say the end boss. From here people assume that the MMORPG’s will be fundamentally the same, except with lots of people. However, as has been very will demonstrated by the current products player competition in any way is not compatible with ‘advancement’ mechanisms that artificially segregate the player base. As a result concepts have evolved as standard expectation which don’t necessarily make any sort of sense. ‘The grind’. ‘End game’. ‘Gated content’.

I suppose these sorts of things are easy simply because it sort of fits expectation. What everyone seems to forget is that in most single player RPG experiences, the levels tend to happen as an ancillary to the fun. But because to the nature of the MMOG beast, the player cant be the central focus protagonist, and as a result the game focuses on the process, instead of the story (or fun, or whatever).

In most competitive arenas, fun happens when two statistically similar opponents meet on the field of competition and use knowledge, strategy, or their own skill to determine the outcome. MMOG advancement schemas render this completely impossible to achieve. In short the outcome of any contest is pre-determined not by skill, rather by time played.

So. How do we overcome this (if overcoming this is a valid goal)? By realizing that expectations derived from single player RPG experiences are not applicable. Therefore, instead of a plotline that everyone is expected to participate, instead of everyman as protagonist, instead of gating content by ‘level’, instead of ‘rock, paper, scissors’ you create an environment where every player is essentially on the same playing field and enable a wide array of strategies and specializations to enable differentiation. Control of resources to field larger NPC armies. Meta level AI that alters NPC faction state based on the meta behavior of a player race. Fame levels. Trophies. Granted powers based on behavior and or Factional Affiliation. Weapon, magic or style specializations that open up new combat strategies. Finally, an ‘endgame’ that is defined by meta interactions of the player base with the game itself, and each other, as opposed to pre-scripted content that is level gated and available only to those who happen on the event but (most importantly) has no real ‘end state’ unless defined as such by the players.

After all, the business goal is to extend and enhance the group of subscribers as much as possible. So why not extend this with fun and competition as opposed to the ‘grind’? In short, once more making the game about the fun instead of the mechanisms.

[kuro]

A big problem with trying to make MMO PvP game without levels is simply the scale.  If you look at classic games or sports the teams are set as the same size and are relatively small.  You cannot do that in a MMOG because it stops being "massive".  PvP in MMOG becomes the business equivalent of Microsoft vs. every other software producer or the military equivalent of the U.S. vs. Iraq.  

Even if all players are equal,  zerg guilds will form where they put it to everyone else.  It's not fun for members of the zerg guild, because there's no challenge and it's certainly not fun for people not in the zerg guilds.  

PvP can really only serve as a mini-game of a MMOG in which you have to artificially limit the number of players per team and you have to auto-balance the teams based on player skill.  Players have absolutely no sense of fair play, so developers have to force them to play nice.

[NewGuy]

Levelling in PnP games was originally a quantification of the character growth and "inner journey" a typical protagonist does in a typical epical fantasy novel.

From bakers aprentice to world saving arch wizard etc. As such it is fine.

At first step, a kobold is a threat (never a bunny or a sheep though...). At the end the hero can wipe out hordes of kobolds without a second thought and is ready to tackle the evil dragon single handedly. World saved, everyone happy.

In (good) PnP games the levelling was never the journey though. Levelling was a side effect of the journey. And that is how it should be.

But there actually IS joy in watching your character grow and develop. There is. It feels good to advance, to grow mightier. But at least as important is that it changes fundamental aspects of the game. The game is kept fresh by getting new powers and adjusting your playstyle/tactics. You tackles new challenges in new and different ways.

I'm certainly no fan of the level grind, but don't forget this last aspect in your levelless game.

[kaid]

The main thing I want in any game is to have fun and to feel like I have accomplished something.

In mmrpg in general I am wanting to have some objective some goal to work towards. These can be many different things but levels and equipment are some of the more common ones.

SWG is a very flat powercurve game and frankly that has put off alot of people. After a certain point you really start having to work to make goals for yourself because the game quickly runs out of offering them to you.

I do not find pvp in games like this to be very interesting because it is more often than not just a test to see who knows the leet combo and exploits best.

If I am getting into a game that has limited growth and is mainly player vs player oriented I would look for something like planetside. At least there death means little and it is fast paced. In a mmrpg that kind of meaningless cycle of death gets drawn out far past any ammusement.

I dont level for the sake of seeing bigger level numbers. I level to do more things, to have more content opened to me, more power than I had before, new play style options. Levels are a way of pacing the game and the introduction of more and more advanced play styles to your player population. Sure you can macro the shit out of a game and play it like progress quest and even in a flat progress game like swg many do but that is a playstyle choice they make.


If when I get a game I can do anything, go anywhere be as powerful as I will ever be that game likely will not hold my attention. Even in eq I often make low level alts not so much because I crave the ding but that I like to make new character I think up and watch them mature and grow.

With no growth there is stagnation and eventually boredom. This however can be done without levels UO was a pretty good example of a game having lots of alternet methods of accomplishment to keep people interested. In general though levels are a fair way to introduce content to players over a period of time.

When you really look at it the though of making enough for somebody to do to enjoy your game for 5 or more YEARS is a daunting scary thought that must cross every mmrpg devs mind. Most single player games these days that people talk about being so good give what 20 to 50 HOURS of game play?

Eventually as the genera matures I expect somebody will have an ah HA! moment and things really will take the next jump forward past leveling.  But until that happens I fully expect most games will use levels as the chosen method of game pacing.

Kaid