Believe it or not, there are PnP games that are not level based, and they most definately are role playing games.  And to be honest, these systems give you MUCH more freedom to develop your character and theyre not nearly as linear as going through levels.

Honestly, it's rather silly to compare MMOs to pen 'n paper RPGs. The primary reason is in a PnP game, you have a live, hands-on GM. Not only do they *greatly* enrich the story-telling and role playing experience, but they also serve as a moderator who can adjust balance/difficulty on the fly. Of course they can support a lot of freedom.

Trying to replicate that in an online game is at best ambitious. At worst, it's simply not feasible — particularlly so with a potential +100k or more simultaneous players. It's a limitation of the format.

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Honestly, it's rather silly to compare MMOs to pen 'n paper RPGs. The primary reason is in a PnP game, you have a live, hands-on GM. Not only do they *greatly* enrich the story-telling and role playing experience, but they also serve as a moderator who can adjust balance/difficulty on the fly. Of course they can support a lot of freedom.

Trying to replicate that in an online game is at best ambitious. At worst, it's simply not feasible — particularlly so with a potential +100k or more simultaneous players. It's a limitation of the format.

Ok, first of all, your username is crackin me up.  Seriously

Second, Id agree.  Trying to replicate PnP is probably what caused most of the problems for MMOs.  Levels can work in PnP because you play with the same group of players, who are usually around the same level, and the GM designs everything around this.  In MMOs with thousands of players per server, the entire game world cant revolve around your avatar and his current level.  Rather, it has to provide zones and/or content for all levels.  So, what you end up with is a strictly segmented game world and player population.

Sure, you could say that a skill based system has the same effect, but its not nearly as obvious or drastic.  Not to mention, a skill based system gives you much more freedom to create the type of character that suites your playstyle.  One thing that keeps me from even trying most of the class/level based MMOs out there is that I almost never see a class that really fits my play style.  Theyre just too restricting. 

Originally posted by Tatum

So, what you end up with is a strictly segmented game world and player population.

It doesn't have to. City of Heroes has levels. Yet they also pioneered the Sidekick/Exemplar system. Players can still team up and engage in the same content.

Originally posted by Tatum

Sure, you could say that a skill based system has the same effect, but its not nearly as obvious or drastic. 

Sure it is. As mentioned previously, a novice Marksman in the old, pre-CU SWG would contribute jack-all while teamed up with more advanced characters. Similarly, in EVE Online, a basic tier-1 frigate pilot wouldn't do much more than leech ISK while grouped with a battleship pilot running L4 missions.

Originally posted by Tatum

Not to mention, a skill based system gives you much more freedom to create the type of character that suites your playstyle. 

 You're confusing levels with classes. They aren't the same thing. Take the Matrix Online for example. That MMO has levels, but no classes. Want to be a pistol-toting, Kung Fu master? Done. Want to be an elite hacker with stealth and spy abilities? Done. You don't even have to have separate characters. At any time you can just walk up to a hardline and customize your abilities to whatever suits your playstyle at that very moment.

Besides, as also mentioned before, skill-based systems still have levels. For example, a player in Ultima Online who's better at fishing than you has a higher skill level.

Originally posted by Tatum

One thing that keeps me from even trying most of the class/level based MMOs out there is that I almost never see a class that really fits my play style.  Theyre just too restricting. 

 They're only as restricting as the developers make them.

This idea has been in my head aswell for a long time! A world where in people don't just have to push the buttons 1-9 to activate their skills but a world where in you got to place your skills in time by making crazy combo's. You would still have a level but it would be of a small import a level 1 would be able to kill al level 70. Your power would be decided by the armour you wear and by the way you use your skills. In that world I would really like to role-play.

---

Originally posted by maacaaviityy
What you are looking for, is called Darkfall.

---

The vaporware legend lives on!

Entropia Universe : there's no levels, just skills ...

But its pretty hard to level some . Since almost nothing is free ( you can sweat haha ).

Maybe an easier game with the same idea might be ok.

Originally posted by baptman

Entropia Universe : there's no levels, just skills ...

But its pretty hard to level some . Since almost nothing is free ( you can sweat haha ).

Maybe an easier game with the same idea might be ok.

EU would be great if it wasn't such a money scam.  I really, really wanted to play that game but when a pair of virtual jeans costs more than a pair of nice designer jeans in real life (I'm not kidding btw, a pair of regular jeans in EU costs around 1000 PED, or $100.00 USD) you're gonna turn a boat load of people off.

Plus the obvious issues of the crazy jumpy character movement.  You'd figure a bug that massively glaring would be a top priority but whatever I guess.  MindArk doesn't care as long as they can milk you.

I have played tons of Pen and paper games both level based and none level based.

The BIG problem with a non level based system is where is the progression? If at the begining of the game i can do any and everything why do i keep playing past the aloted time to finish the quests. New gear you say? well still sort of leveling because what would stop me from having someone give me the best gear in the game right off the bat? Well you wouldn't be able to do that you say? well why not maybe because you need to work your way up there? still levels whether theres a number or not telling you it's still levels of order and progression.

Problem with no levels is the abscence of ALOT of rules. Now i agree this is sometimes a good thing when some PnP games get bogged down but the absence of these things leads to chaos. why should joe blow off the street be able to do the same things that master trainer has been practicing for years doing? he can't? well how did he get there? progression.

Now some might argue that progression is not needed and storyline holds a game. Here you are wrong too many a game has came out with very little in ways of progression IE: no new armor no new abilities no nothing. and the have been 1 of 2 things. 1 being met with bad reviews or poor sales. 2 being met with a very short game ie 10-20 hours or so... now i don't know about you guys but i'm not gonna pay a monthly fee for 10 hours of story game and then PVPVPVPVPVPVPVP.

Now i do agree that the lack of classes and direct leveling may seem like more freedom but it does not make a good video game. A game if you will needs progression how would you like to play monopoly without money? there needs to be some way in a game to slate progression.

Now one more argument might say you don't need levels to make progression and that doesn't meen it's A rps or action game... well then that argument would be also stating that to be a role playing game all you need to do is be playing a ROLE... in which a counter point can easily be "Then every game on the market is TECHNICALLY an RPG". role playing game can be taken so literally in context of PNP it is just that a game where you play a role but in the context of video games it is it's on genre of class based games of numbers and adventure.... legend of zelda for instance is an action adventure game by company standards as much of an RPG some feel it is.

you guys are really arguing over apples and apples here. Without progression an MMO will be a PVPcentric endevour like eve... EVEN THOUGH it still hase technical LEVELS in it's skills. without levels theres no progression which is the key reason most play... if you're looking for just a good story go read a book without progression or score or rank or some form of keeping track of the achievments and skill of your said character it's an action game (even though like someone said COD4 but thats of your player rank and not of your character) and will never garnish a monthly fee from the masses.

I personally like free'er systems yet i still like levels and or skill levels (like eve) i play a game to get aeway and i want something to show for it. i want progression for without it whats bringing me back day after day. i'm not one of those people that can do the same thing over and over and over again just because it's something to do (maybe why i'm not a big FPS person) i just never saw the point in playing the same map over and over again shooting the same guy for the 500th time. i wanna see my character grow and not just do evetrything from day one... my player skill is set i'm not getting any better at how i play games bet i want my character to grow stronger, get better at magic, learn more and progress in his use of his weapons.

and ps even if it's skill based IE preCU SWG or something thats still a form of level. if you don't think it is what you're REALLY against is classes and not levels.

Originally posted by phatpetey

This idea has been in my head aswell for a long time! A world where in people don't just have to push the buttons 1-9 to activate their skills but a world where in you got to place your skills in time by making crazy combo's. You would still have a level but it would be of a small import a level 1 would be able to kill al level 70. Your power would be decided by the armour you wear and by the way you use your skills. In that world I would really like to role-play.

Thing is those games you're not just hacking and slashing you're casting intricate spells and a numurous amount i wouldn't play a a game where i had to remember all 35 or my hotkeys in combo form. i'd go learn to play an instument or fly a plane or something.

what needs to be remembered is it's still a game and it still has to have enough abilitys to keep peeople playing for the 500+ hours people play mmo's these days. and i for one wouldn't want to remember 35+ different button combos on a keyboard while moving my character and aiming. and if you say oh well less... well why wouldn't i just use a macro? which is that 1 press button already avialable in games.

it still needs to be enjoyable and easily picked up by people an RPG is supposed to be a role not YOU if i wanted to really fight crime i'd go join the military or something i'm playing a game i want my characters skill to grow and not my own.

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

 

Originally posted by talismen351

That would be basically what Ultima Online is. But I guess it wasn't as popular as the level based EverQuest at the time...so every game followed the lead of EQ. Lvls are easier than actually thinking out the skills of your chars.

 

And how exactly do you quantify skill proficiency in Ultima Online? Skill LEVELS!

Levels need be nothing more than a means to measure progression.

Really, what I'm seeing here are several different arguments:

1) Skill-based systems vs. Class-based systems
2) Which mechanics should be used to advance character progression?
3) Should MMO games even have character progression?
4) WoW sucks

Try actually reading what the OP is stating...what he is talking about is exactly what UO is. You want to raise one specific skill...you work on it.  In UO there is no Ranger, or Mage or Healer to level up nice n easily. You want to be a ranger, need to raise up your archery,taming,tracking skills individually...they don't just jump up at a lvl 'ding'. You have to do specific things to do with that specific skill to raise the skill proficiency. You can choose to work up one skill while letting another skill drop. Can you do this with Levels? With Levels can you be a Master Swordsman n a Master Mage on the same char? No you can only do this if you have only skills to work up, rather than lvls.

Originally posted by talismen351

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

 

Originally posted by talismen351

That would be basically what Ultima Online is. But I guess it wasn't as popular as the level based EverQuest at the time...so every game followed the lead of EQ. Lvls are easier than actually thinking out the skills of your chars.

 

And how exactly do you quantify skill proficiency in Ultima Online? Skill LEVELS!

Levels need be nothing more than a means to measure progression.

Really, what I'm seeing here are several different arguments:

1) Skill-based systems vs. Class-based systems
2) Which mechanics should be used to advance character progression?
3) Should MMO games even have character progression?
4) WoW sucks

Try actually reading what the OP is stating...what he is talking about is exactly what UO is. You want to raise one specific skill...you work on it.  In UO there is no Ranger, or Mage or Healer to level up nice n easily. You want to be a ranger, need to raise up your archery,taming,tracking skills individually...they don't just jump up at a lvl 'ding'. You have to do specific things to do with that specific skill to raise the skill proficiency. You can choose to work up one skill while letting another skill drop. Can you do this with Levels? With Levels can you be a Master Swordsman n a Master Mage on the same char? No you can only do this if you have only skills to work up, rather than lvls.

An example since the poster mentioned rangers/mages.

You can get level 75 as a ranger but NEVEr have access to your powerful weapon skills or even be able to hit anything at all at higher level.

The same goes for maging in FFXI you can in theory attain level 75 mage ,but your casting be it healing or nuking would be horrible if your skills were not levelled up.

Other games that try to PRETEND you are getting something unique by allowing you to raise individual skills as you want ,are in reality making the the game very superficial in allowing you to be a jack of all trades if you spend enough time levelling all the skills up.In ffxi you have to choose your path and can only raise skills according to your job/class.You can after several years have all skills maxxed in FFXI as well but you can't sit on one player/class an be a master of everything,you would actually have to switch over jobs.

The non level based games also are just pretenders because 99% of the players will go for max skill boost,depending on there job.A  tank will boost his def/vit /hp ,a melee will boost his str/accy/crit..just because you get to decide doesn't mean anything will change from a level based game that raises the same needed skills.The end result will be exactly the same.FFXI also takes it one step further by allowing you to decide on gear and food you use to determine your player build.This can also be changed mid flight not worrying about how you put your stats into certain skills.

Games change and evolve throughout it's course so having a set in stone build like these  skill based games use takes away from your ability to adapt to different scenarios in a game,such as PVP or raiding or XP pty everything needs a change.

To me playing a game is about working within the parameters that have been created by the game designer and not necessarily my personal ideologies or methodologies in how I want the game to play for me. Not liking a particular system such as leveling is really about someones personal taste in gaming. I can appreciate a design that meets my personal likes, however I realize that game designers can't meet everyones expectations or have a one size fits all game.

Leveling doesn't necessarily represent 'how long' someone has played (learning and gaining experience from play), as you have PLing seasons for those that want to 'get to the fun stuff'. These fundamental arguments seem to derive from people who are looking for a faster paced action adventure level playing field style game. Having people start when and were they want trivializes the genre, there has to be some measuring system by which someone can asses and feel a since of accomplishment.

This seems like another attempt at removing consequences for the sake of convenience and just get to the business of playing for the sake of playing hoping that it then inspires 'fun' and 'enjoyment'.

Han, what youre saying is true, but it does depend on exactly what type of skill system youre dealing with.  Ok, lets see if I can explain this with out rambling.  When you "level up" in a level system, a few things happen: 

1)  you get more skill points or spec points to spend.  this is good.

2) your hit points, power pools, and stats increase by default.  i'd have to argue that, for the most part, this is bad.  The difference between, say, a level 1 warrior and even a 20 warrior is huge.  Not to mention, a higher level mage will have MORE hitpoints than a lower level warrior.  To me, thats never made sense.  Wouldnt it make more sense if your hit points only increase when your constitution increases or you "mana" pool only icreases when your intelligence (or what ever) increases? 

3) your hit/miss ratios are adjusted.  For me, this is the deal breaker, expecially in a PvP game.  Now, youre adding a HUGE artificial barrier between players of different levels.  Because of this adjustment, even a 1 level difference can be an impossible gap.  To go back to the other example, a higher level mage can out melee a lower level warrior, just based off of the hit/miss ratio.  As far as I know (could be wrong) some of the newer MMOs have toned this down a bit, but Id rather not see it at all.

So, it still does depend on the specific skill system.  Some skill systems can be similar to this, other can be completely opposite.  If you have a skill system where your actual skills are the only thing that increases (rather than all of the other stats), the gap wouldnt be as big. 

It would be a whole other thread, but if you get into something like a horizontal progression system or a zero progression system, then there really arent many similarities. 

Originally posted by Tatum

...When you "level up" in a level system, a few things happen: 

1)  you get more skill points or spec points to spend.  this is good.

2) your hit points, power pools, and stats increase by default.  i'd have to argue that, for the most part, this is bad.  The difference between, say, a level 1 warrior and even a 20 warrior is huge.  Not to mention, a higher level mage will have MORE hitpoints than a lower level warrior.  To me, thats never made sense.  Wouldnt it make more sense if your hit points only increase when your constitution increases or you "mana" pool only icreases when your intelligence (or what ever) increases?  

Depends on the system. Automagically raising your constitution/intelligence/whatever by default is not universal to every game that has levels. In some, you get a allotment of points to spend however you wish (or not at all, if you'd rather save them up). Want more hit points? Invest in constitution. Want more mana points? Invest in intelligence.

Originally posted by Tatum

3) your hit/miss ratios are adjusted.  For me, this is the deal breaker, expecially in a PvP game.  Now, youre adding a HUGE artificial barrier between players of different levels.  Because of this adjustment, even a 1 level difference can be an impossible gap.  To go back to the other example, a higher level mage can out melee a lower level warrior, just based off of the hit/miss ratio.  As far as I know (could be wrong) some of the newer MMOs have toned this down a bit, but Id rather not see it at all.

So, it still does depend on the specific skill system.  Some skill systems can be similar to this, other can be completely opposite.  If you have a skill system where your actual skills are the only thing that increases (rather than all of the other stats), the gap wouldnt be as big.  

If the gap wouldn't be as big, then what does that tell you about those skills? At what point do you start to ask yourself, "why did I bother advancing this?"

Anything you've invested time time and effort into should have its rewards. That's accomplishment. That's progression. While I'm not necessarily advocating a radical difference between two characters only one level apart, a character I've spent months playing darn well better be more competent and effective than one fresh out of the tutorial. Otherwise, what's the point?

No offense, and I'm not specifically attributing this to you, but frankly what I suspect is behind many of these arguments in this thread is a resentment towards progression in general. Some people just can't accept that they aren't as "uber powerful" right out of character creation as someone who's been playing for months or even years.

And honestly that's fine. If progression-based games aren't your thing, there's nothing wrong with that. It would just be nice if some folks were honest and up front about it.

In response to FFXI being the greatest console game ever made.  What does that have to do with it as an MMORPG?

Its horrible, I've wasted 3 years of my life playing that game, the problems in FFXI are the same the OP complains about

75 levels where you are only really able to party with people 1-2 levels apart from you, a VERY STRICT party system REQUIRING a tank of which only two jobs (out of the 20 they have) qualify as a tank.

There is NO soloing, and the thing your bragging about, that your not handed super powers in FFXI?  no you have to farm countless hours upon hours to obtain a SHRED of power, you constantly will die to monsters the game CLAIMS is EVEN MATCH to you at your level even on jobs that you assume should be offensive.

I agree entirely with the OP, LEVELS are the bane of MMO's

the problem is that you limit who you can play with and you promote shameless elitism.

What people are missing is that if you have a skill based game you don't show off what your level is and hence its hidden, I'm not saying it doesn't have some of the same pitfalls of a level based game but when in FFXI or in WoW when you meet a person of your level there can be a HUGE difference between your levels of "power" and that is determaned mostly by GEAR not by actual gamer SKILL.

its irritating that to have fun you have to have a full party of 6 people in 1-2 level range in a game that has a hefty 75 levels to drudge through, which I've done not once but several times now.

Down with level systems, yes City of Hero's Sidekick system is a great idea, and if  more games used this method I wouldn't feel so strongly perhaps

Originally posted by talismen351

Try actually reading what the OP is stating...what he is talking about is exactly what UO is. You want to raise one specific skill...you work on it.  In UO there is no Ranger, or Mage or Healer to level up nice n easily. You want to be a ranger, need to raise up your archery,taming,tracking skills individually...they don't just jump up at a lvl 'ding'. You have to do specific things to do with that specific skill to raise the skill proficiency. You can choose to work up one skill while letting another skill drop. Can you do this with Levels? With Levels can you be a Master Swordsman n a Master Mage on the same char? No you can only do this if you have only skills to work up, rather than lvls.

Try actually reading what you've quoted.

"Levels" are NOT synonymous with "classes".

Yes, there are games with levels where you can be a Master Swordsman AND a Master Mage on the same character. Not all games with levels have classes. Heck, not even all games with classes limit you to one class.

I'm sure as it has been said quite a few times in this thread, skills do still have levels.

I think what the OP was really wanting was a skill based game.

Personally I don't see why anyone would choose a class based game over a skill based.  Because of the freedom, you can be exactly what you want to be.

In a skill based game you can be exactly that class equivalent in a class based game.  Where in a class based it forced you to stick to that archetype.  Say you want to primarily be a healer, but you like to melee.  Well you just pick some melee skills up. 

In classed based you are at the mercy of what the devs invision that class to be.  Not what you truely may want to play/be.  I think this would make development of a game much easier as well, because then the devs don't have to try and figure out if this class is good enough of not.  All they would have to do is throw a bunch of skills out there for you to choose from.  Some skill trees I'm sure would need some love somewhere down the line. 

If UO would have been 3d, it would have kicked the hell out of EQ.  EQ did have quite the atmosphere though, so that was another of it's strong points.  Really can't compare that to UO though, since it was overhead based; so really don't know if it could have competed in that area.

Originally posted by Jerid13

the problem is that you limit who you can play with and you promote shameless elitism.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another is you've got a few impatient, instant-gratification kiddies who watch too much Dragon Ball Z, don't appreciate achievement, and want to be over level nine thousaaaaaaand soon as they log in.

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

 
No offense, and I'm not specifically attributing this to you, but frankly what I suspect is behind many of these arguments in this thread is a resentment towards progression in general. Some people just can't accept that they aren't as "uber powerful" right out of character creation as someone who's been playing for months or even years.

And honestly that's fine. If progression-based games aren't your thing, there's nothing wrong with that. It would just be nice if some folks were honest and up front about it.

Really, it's an arguement thats never going to end, because there will always be fans of both systems.  Some are happy with the typical level based MMO and some are looking for more of a "virtual world" type of MMO.