Why do we Level? a discussion in the philosophy behind leveling

I've been thinking the same thing sometimes, Imo you could drop the 'level' concept altogether and just gain Attrib points and health based on expirience gained, or become 'leveless' when you hit the 20 mark.

Altho this could post problems with 'endgame' places and missions with nonmax attrib players.. but anyway on to ye questions:

1. Capping a max number of levels or leaving levels uncapped
- I think 'uncapped' would be the best, but keep the 'level 20' as attributional max. I find leveling to be fun in most games, atm in gw its kinda sad to see the exp rise but your still just the lvl 20 guy youve been for the last 2yrs.

2. How your outlook on #1 impacts or enhances things like overall game balance, the replayability of content, the development of future content, etc.
- Upcapped but stats limited, I would see nothing changed really, except 'Legendary heroes' could make name of themselfs with epic levels of 100+ d;.

3. When does leveling turn into grinding?
- Imo grind comes to play when you need something to do something (not wanting to do something!), so aslong as you can do things you need to do unhindered, 'grind' aint a problem.

4. When does gaining character levels become inane?
- Never really, some ppl like big numbers, let them have 'em.

This is a question that has long perplexed me, since leveling a character is something that I both enjoy and hate depending on it's implementation in the game. Let me start by saying that I've been around long enough as an avid online gamer to have experienced a decent variety of leveling systems in a respectable number of MMOs.

So to follow my own format:

1. I have found that I am able to more thoroughly enjoy the content of the game when the leveling has finished. I look at leveling as a necessary thing, but feel from experience that it has a limited purpose and should end at the point where the plot gets engaging. Leveling CANNOT be a substitute for plot or content or from a design perspective we lose replayability. For these reasons I am ALL FOR a level cap.
2. By implementing a level cap in games you build in a ready-made means of balancing the gameplay. When designers sit down and create foes one of the questions they have to ask is "how strong/tough/formidable of a foe is this NPC in relation to the player characters that frequent this area?" This has (since the days of pen and paper D&D) been expressed in terms of character levels. As a character advances from level 1 to 20 in traditional D&D, we lose replayability of the same encounters because the difficulty of the encounter is inversely proportionate to the number of levels the party of characters has. As a consequence 30+ years of refinement to the D&D system has unconsciously (or perhaps consciously) mandated a charater level cap, if not explicitly termed such (after all there are epic level characters) then at the least it's an implicit reality (what do level 40+, god-like characters fight in AD&D?) due to lack of content. This has an immediate affect on the development of future content (returning to video games) because the franchise wants to keep its existing playerbase interested, yet the maximum level has likely been achieved by many of it's players. ENTER ARENA.NET to save us all. The beauty of Arena Net's system is that the vast majority of the content takes place after the leveling has completed. Practically the entirety of their expansions (minus tutorials) have been plots and content for level 20 characters. The ingenious reason for playing the content is to get what? NOT XP, NOT Levels.... SKILLS! Chicks only dig guys with good skills, right Napoleon? LONG LIVE ARENA NET!! Someone finally found an enjoyable system whereby players can enjoy content and achieve measurable results without the number of levels even being part of the equation. THIS IS A HUGE BREAKTHROUGH IN GAMING! Please don't revert back to tried-and-failed methods like scaling foes levels to the character's level (I'm talkin about you Oblivion!) or leaving the character level virtually uncapped (any SOE MMO you can name).
3. Any time the player's focus turns from the plot/content of the game to the acquisition of an item/title/level/skill. One may argue that by changing the focus from levels to skills post level 20, all Arena net did was to make the game a skill grind, but to me the paradigm is different. Maybe it's all in my head, or maybe not. I also believe that all skills should be questable, hence returning to plots and content as a means of acquisition rather than grinding.
4. As soon as game balance is compromised or it (leveling) overwhelms the focus of the plot/content in the players' behavior. (I.E. those people who death level in pre-searing). Did they do that because they enjoyed the storyline? I am willing to recognize that there are some players who judge their enjoyment/success of any given game by how well they can level their characters and then lose interest in their characters after they achieve the max level in the game. For me personally I feel like there is no help for such folk. They should stick to a game like a word typing game where you have to type the words that appear faster and faster to get to the next level. Since its all about the number that represents the level for them, why go to the effort to give them plot or content? I for one, want content and plots over mobs, farming, grinding and leveling.

Since this is a philosophic thread,

In PvE you have to spend time to level your underpowered characters for them to be at par and ready to face level 34 monsters with ridiculously powerful skills.

Thus leveling is a sign of inherent imbalance in PvE. QED.

I'll assume you are Referring to GW2's reported plan to have much higher-possibly unlimited level cap idea as I answer.

1. Both are possible in spirit. In the PCGamer article about GW2, the reference to higher caps (and possibly uncapped) was based on the idea that many players just wanted *some* form of recognition for the amount of time they've spent playing. In theory the could essentially cap the game at 20 even if the cosmetic numbers keep going up as you only gain additional skill points. If they can balance traditional 'high end PVP' in an uncapped level setting I can't wait to see how they do it, but I've some doubts.
My preference is: whatever as long as the game is cool

2: It sounds like the global pvp will be cool, and level will be less of an issue for that, but level caps could impact balance for traditional pvp (GVG). One possible workaround that I can think of off the top of my head is that in GVG all combatants become normalized to a fixed standard level/attirbute point #. This would be fairly simple to implement I'd think, and one could actually do it behind the scenes. If characters instead of having attribute points to spend just had slider bars (30% here, 43% there...) the pvp normalization wouldnt even require players to retool for GVG.

3: Subjective, for me though never, since if it feels like grinding I'll go do something else until it doesnt.

4: Subjectively dependant on the answer to #3. In my case irrelevant since if it's not fun I don't do it.

I love the current system in that all of the grinding is by choice, none is necessary. I'm going to assume that Anet will make every attempt to keep this alive in GW2, while giving some titular recognition to players who have 13 million exp... (easy to do now though, just by adding a title based on # of experience points).

The one thing i dont understand about level caps and other games is armor.

In gw you have an armor system where:

20 means +50%dmg
30 means +37,5%dmg
40 means +25%dmg
50 means +12,5%dmg

60 means +-0%dmg

70 means -12,5%dmg
80 means -25%dmg
100 means -50%dmg
120 means -75%dmg
140 means -100%dmg

What i ask myself is:

In guild wars its ok to have such a system, because even when you have lower armor then 60 it takes only a little to get to it, so you wont suffer too much from more damage.

But in other games like WoW, where you have differences like 20 and 2000 armor, how is there a system in that?

I would honestly prefer that 'leveling' in the traditional sense did not exist. I know some people like the sense of achievement, or I'd say power fantasy that comes with it, but I just find it too limiting.

For example:

Leveling means I can't play with my friends unless we schedule our play time so one of us doesn't outpace the other. Similarly, my ability to find players to group with is limited, because the overall population is stratified into isolated groups which are segregated by power level.

Leveling means I am arbitrarily limited in what content I can do. Some content becomes trivial, and it's boring to do it because I've become too powerful for the NPCs I'm facing to threaten me. Other content isn't available to me, not because I don't have the skill to do it, but because I haven't invested X time into the game.

Leveling means old content becomes useless to 90% of the players in the game over time. This means that development time spent on all zones geared to players below the level cap is going to be 'wasted' at some point. Imagine how much more efficient it would be if players could be shunted back to the 'low level' areas throughout their lifespan? New players would constantly have contact with experienced players. Zones would constantly be used, and not turn into ghost towns inhabited by one or 2 newbies who get turned off and quit playing because the world feels empty. Development time is used more efficiently, as zones are reused constantly, instead of being forgotten.

I understand that people who play RPGs want a sense of advancement, but I think this should be in the form of customization, fluff perks such as armor skins, housing, ownership of towns and forts, character flexability, and so on - not just "I got bigger numbers now."

I think RPGs need a huge dose of common sense. No matter how much time you spend killing zombies or spiders or whatnot, you're still a squishy guy with soft skin and crunchy bones - that guy with the club, or that black bear over there? They should still break your head if you don't fight smart, even if you are like level 2,034,189.

We level because we're used to levelling, that's it. It's the way games started, it's how people expect them to be. Nothing more, nothing less. Even regular old video games progress you through what as you go on? Levels. Actually, you can blame these old video games a lot... if you're playing Space Invaders, for example, you want to get through as many levels as you can before losing.

Levelling is nothing more than an addiction. GW had started to break the addiction, until they caved in to the junkies with GW2.

I'm going to break your format, and list some pros and cons of leveling.

Pro

Makes getting experience worth something. Currently, once you reach level 20 in Guild Wars, gaining XP means very little, unless you are short on skill points (in which case, Anet's system is actually broken, because you are forced to "grind" for skill points)

Rewards players who play the game longer / or more often. This is also a con for casual players like myself.

Cons

Could force grind if not implemented correctly.

Will lead to Elitism (also, could be a pro, because I will be able to avoid such elitists by just telling them my level! )


It really all boils down to how it is implemented. If I ever feel like I'm being "held back" by my level, that's not a good sign. If, however, I hardly notice my level (much like I hardly notice my XP now), then it won't be an issue.

1. A high cap (100+) and unlimited levels are pretty much equal. Actually, if it's going to be over 100, it might as well be unlimited. That way, without a cap, there is no "rushing to the end", because there is no end.

2. Well, future content can never be exclusively for a particular level. Now, you could have limited "elite" areas for level 100+ (much like DoA, which I have never and probably will never visit). But those should be rare, and the majority of the game should be at least accessable (even if challenging) to all levels.

3. Leveling = grinding only when you are forced to do it. People should never feel like they have to level (or, as I said in the point above, only in rare instances should level restrict content).

4. I agree with you, that when leveling becomes the end all, it's reached it's limit. Which is why I'd rather have no level cap than a very, very high one. The worst idea would be to have levels increase with Expansions. That's a double whammy: It incites people to rush through the game (I'm level 70 first! Woot!) and forces you to buy the expansion to remain competitive. If Anet does that (I sincerely doubt they will), they can kiss my money goodbye.

Final point: As long as the game remains fun to play as a casual player, I will support it. I fully believe that a game should be as much as it can to as many as possible. If somebody likes to level, and that's what floats his or her boat, who am I to argue? I just want the most people to be happy, and as long as high levels don't make the game unplayable by casual players, I see nothing wrong with them.

1. Capping a max number of levels or leaving levels uncapped
The whole concept behind "leveling" is the idea of growth. Through understanding of gameplay, we grow not only in experience but also in skill, action, and precision. By adding a "level cap" to a game, you limit the characters who play in that world. This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing. It is merely a matter of interest when it comes to, "what does one find amiable when playing a video game?"
However, since the idea of amiability differs from person to person, perhaps the question should be, "what does the majority find amiable when playing a video game?" I think this best fits.
As an example, once a Guild Wars character has reached level 20, they are expected to "know" how to play the game with a sense of intelligence and understanding. It is understandable to see a level 12 Monk using Mending to keep the entire party healed, but as a level 20, they should understand the idea of "energy management".
Another example is a World of Warcraft character. A level 70 is an "adult" in the world set before them. They understand the game fully and have experience with all that they are given.
In the end, the question of, "is a level capping a good idea?" is no longer the question you should be asking yourself. What one should ask is, "what is my final goal in making such a game?"

2. How your outlook on #1 impacts or enhances things like overall game balance, the replayability of content, the development of future content, etc.
Balance is purely opinion. In the end, there is "just" sense of balance. Any change in power will always hurt a given party of individuals and will change gameplay, but that does not mean the majority will be able to adapt to the change. One must based a sense of "balance" on whether the majority adapts or not.
Replay, just like balance, is opinion as well. However, there is a difference between repetition and replay.
Development of future content can act as many different things: addition of replay, change of balance, extension of level cap. All can either make or break a game.

3. When does leveling turn into grinding?
"Leveling" turns into "grinding" when the learning ends and the experience begins. Once again, neither is a bad thing. It just depends on what you are looking for in a game.

4. When does gaining character levels become inane?
"Leveling" becomes pointless only when you feel you do not need to learn anymore. As humans, we thrive on learning. As computer characters, however, we can grow tired of it. In order to prevent "pointless" leveling, it would be wise to make sure that once a majority reaches a point of understanding, the act of experiencing begins.

1. A cap is good if uncapped gives you advantages as you reach higher levels. That degrades the game into "who plays longer=better", and I refuse to play a game in which time playing is rewarded over skill.

2. Games are, in my opinion, better when based on gameplay, not character development. I don't want to spend the whole game bringing my character to "max" level, I want to spend the game playing for fun! Maybe making new builds, new strategies, etc., but certainly not to level up and gain an increase in power. IMO, no level system increases replayability. You could roll a new profession and, although armor and attributes may not be max, you don't have to go through the game waiting for your character to grow.

3. Leveling turns into grinding when you have to do things you wouldn't do without a level up reward. If levels were out of the factor, would you be doing what you are doing now? If "no", then I consider that grind.

4. Gaining levels is good for newer players, as they get to start off as weak characters with limited skill access, limited attribute access, etc. It creates a learning curve. Other than that, I consider levels a waste of time.

O me likey what you said there on #4 Series! It got me thinking, why even have something called character level? Why not award new skills and attribute points based on which quests and missions the player has completed? Isn't that where the designers want us getting our XP from anyway? As long as enough quests and missions are implemented to provide players with variety for their characters (so that we aren't all cookie cutter classes (SOE SWG)) why have a character level? Instead of players saying "I'm a level 73" they'd say, I've acquired 145 monk skills, 74 mesmer skills, and I specialize in playing a self-energy-managing prot bonder! Sounds like a much more enjoyable organic system... As others have said... all leveling really is, is a system of graduated content. So what are some other ways to graduate the content of a game that arent level based and still appeal to the playerbase? Then we could keep the number that some players are so fascinated with and it wouldn't be such a determinant to the gameplay.

jkyarr - I apreciate your concerns, but don't you think this point is moot?

GW2 will have levels. It's too much an accepted part of RPGs.

Would it be great to have a game without levels, or even professions or skill points?

I mean, if we're getting rid of one part of "grind", why not get rid of all of it.

You make a character, you pick your skills, and the only thing that separates you from joe blow is the skills you picked and how you use them?

It's the ultimate in "skill" vs "time played." Everything else is just a compromise.

1) No cap, no levels either except steady and fast power gain thoughout tutorial. While players do enjoy getting higher numbers and hunting carots, I dont. I want to "finish" character, be able to know that he is maxed out in some way.
There is way bigger feeling of achievent if you can say: Yep, i did it, this is max, now I am gonna just have fun with experiemnting with this char without worying AS well as there is frustration with non cap/insane levels - goals you will never, ever achieve - why even bother starting?

2)
Ballance - obvious, you can ballance while world, have harder piece in here, easy somewhere else. you have simple baseline, little can go bad.
Replayability - as you can skip most parts of game (no leveling zones), you find new sceneries after years as you wander to area noone forced you to enter before, on your own. Same with quests - if you dont "have to" do quests, you will skip some only to discovere them much later.
Future content - no brainer, you know how to ballance new content, since new content wont obsolete old content. some new content people will like, some people wont, but since it wont be required.

Basically - as soon as there is no required content to go though and when game stops to hold your hand and walk you through areas on preconcived tracks like its themepark, it gets better.

IT also gets scarier for some people (what am i supposed to do now???), and unplayable for other (i want game to set goals for me to hunt em, i dotn want to set my own goals ...)

3)
As soon as you lean about fun content wich you cant access because there are hours of unfun areas inbetween which require you to go through and spend time there.

4)
When you realize that .... its just a damn number ... when you realize it cuts you both of past areas and of future areas. ... when you realize that there is more to RPG than just being munchkin.

When you compare GURPS to AD&D

I keep pushing this image throught: http://www.zweistein.cz/mmorpg/levels.png (basically, GW acts like imperfect No-level game - some areas get obsoleted )

Why we level? Answer is simple... yet deep.

It is because we feel powerless in the world, that you feel lack of "things" (by that could mean lots things, like love, friendship, money, family, body, social standing, etc) That is why such mechanics (the leveling) are often found in a Fantasy RPG, an escapist game, since those people tend to want to be someone else. Leveling provide an illusion that they are becoming more and more powerful, gaing more of what they lack in real life. And because it is relative an easy thing to do, usually with long hour of clicking (unlike what you have to do in real-world to gain power), thus those people are easily addict to it. (else you would be out climing a mountain or something, instead of playing a game) The games and their maker, in their attempt to attrach more players, so to sell more copies for their own gain, are willing to give player this sensation of satisfaction, yet only in conditions, like tangling a carrot in front of a donkey. In ways, they are selling the a form of drugs.

Thats why there are leveling, and why people are so willingly follow this imaginary number.

1. I like the idea of uncapped, but with lvl 20 as attribute cap.
2. More levels=More replayability. Reason to do stuff more.
3. When you something repeatedly for no reason other than clearing x.
4. When it takes over a week to gain 1 level at 12 hours a day.

Mordakai- Of course GW2 will have levels, that was hardly my point. My point was to examine the paradigm that the number is used for in current gameplay and brainstorm some alternatives. Examining it from a game design perspective I think Arena Net has already moved towards a model that decentralized the importance of character level by capping at 20 and focusing on skill builds from there on out. To keep the value of the alternative they already implemented and better it for GW2, I maintain that they need to further dissociate the importance of character level from the logic they use to provide graduated content. Quest chaining could be such an alternative (if multiple chains were implemented for variety's sake).

Displaying a character level to the player or even to other players could remain an option, but why build it into the mechanics of the game as a fundamental determinant for plot or storyline progression, like it currently is for Ascension, or access to the FOW or UW? If the underlying factors (like number of attribute points and variety of skills) are established with the predominant importance they should have, then what more does character level even mean?

Research ORIGIN of "level" in RPGs - both pean and paper and how it translated to computer ones. You will find answer.

Interesting thread!

I think people love leveling because it gives them a sense of accomplishment. Unlike in real life, they put in the time, and the reward always comes. Plus it gives everyone a goal to reach, which once reached can be bragged about and shown off, which people love as well.

It would be interesting to see how people would react to having infinite leveling (no level cap).... there would be some conflict here because even though you would get constantly rewarded (by leveling) as you put in time, because there's no cap, you don't ever get the feeling of having reached "the top". I think being able to reach "the top" is important because, for one thing, it means no one else has a higher level than you - I think that's psychologically significant.

Come to think of it... didn't Dungeons and Dragons have levelling, and doesn't that pre-date computer games?