RPG's need an overhaul

[Dis]

I love RPG's, I even love the AD&D system . Even with all its flaws- and there are many.

The biggest flaw in RPG's imho is character levels. Although hitpoints is a close second. Hitpoints is often associated with character levels so they go together.

Yes I know hitpoints reflect a characters ability to dodge and avoid damage better. But this is reflected in dexterity for most systems.

I just don't think it's good (I won't use realistic since rpg's are set in fantasy or sci-fi most of the time) that hitpoints go up so quickly. Why can a level 20 fighter absorb so much more damage than a level 1 fighter?

My guess is most people like numbers. And they like to inflict large amounts of numbers. Myself included. When I see things like 10D6 of damage, I salivate. It wouldn't be as dramatic if higher level spells had advantages over lower level spells of only being able to bypass saving throws better, or negate dexterity saves.

Character levels really take a lot out of a rpg. But if a character is static, that makes the game essentually an adventure game right? Obviously a character should improve over time. But I say to limit that improvement. Physcial damage should be modelled more realistically based on creature size and biology.

The thing about levels is it really turns many rpg's into kill-fests. Diablo suffers from this. And as far as I can tell, Everquest also suffers from this- I've never actually played it.

Surely there is a better system out there isn't there? I have a few ideas running around my head, but I'm not sure if I can explain them adequately here. Writing was never my strong point.

[Dis]

The biggest thing I would like is to see the elimination of character levels.

Why not just have skills improve over time ala Morrowind. Though morrowind also has levels . And I don't like the level up feature of Morrorwind very much. But it's a start.

[vmxa1]

Put me in the I like to level up group please.

[Asmodean]

Couldn't you say that the number of hitpoints represent more than just the ability to absorb damage?

I mean...it's obvious (at least if you try to take the realistic point of view) that a strong fighter can not take 6-8 times as much damage as a weak fighter. But then what? Well let's say that he is 6-8 times better at avoiding stabs, while at the same time watching his own back and slashing out at his opponent.

As you said, the is represented in dexterity. But let's broaden the perspective. What if hitpoints also represent the fact that his greater combat experience makes him know where to take a hit, if he can see that a hit is unavoidable? And that he can stomach pain easier. If you use this system, you can represent his incurred DAM as not just damage. This enables you to look at DAM as a factor of "time/luck is running out for the fighter".

I know this opens up a whole new can of worms, because if this is the case, then what about the need to heal. But let's not go there today, shall we?

I see what you mean, Diss. And up to a point, I agree with you. But at the moment, I can not envision anything better than the current system.

Asmodean

[Jamski]

I live to level up. Its a reward for the hard work you have been through. I used to play with a DM who insisted that when I leveled up, I had to find a "master" who would be able to increase my skills. That was a PAIN.

But everyone likes to get another d8+x hitpoints or more spells.

-Jam

[Sore Loser]

I think a greater problem is the killing-monsters-is-good-because-that-gives-my-character-XP mentality. Any sensible warrior would know that you don't kill out of malice, as there is a risk of fatalities. Ideally, advancement should depend on entirely different factors. These can be unknown to the player or even be 100% up to the DM's judgement.

[General Ludd]

I agree dissident. There should be character advancement, but it should be much more subtle than it usually is.

[Skanky Burns]

Levelling up with a *large* tangible result is your reward for playing well. Subtle levelling leads to an "Oh well, another level. Whooop de dooo" feeling.

[General Ludd]

I play RPGs because I like to roleplay. Powergamers can stick to diablo, thanks.

[Sandman]

Good thread idea.

My wishlist:

An end, forever, to trashy adversaries. No more fighting mice, rats, bats, crows etc. Unless there are hordes of them, Indiana Jones style.

Less complicated magical systems, without tons of redundant spells that are never used. I'd also like a mage type character that can use magic repeatly without needing to recharge. Most RPGs provide the opportunity for potion abuse anyway, so why not just get rid of mana altogether?

More complicated physical combat systems, with more moves available than just 'attack'. Throws, grapples, punches, low attacks, high attacks, defence, disarm, decapitations, trips, etc. Almost moving into beat-em-up territory, in fact.

Try to replace hit-points. Deus Ex's area specific damage system was good, I'd use that. Make armour area specific as well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that armour should only protect those areas of the body which are covered by it. So no more protecting one's hands by wearing bracers. Also, plate armour should only be available for special occasions.

More swords. Fewer bashing weapons. Swords triumphed historically over every other melee weapon for general usage. I'd like to see an RPG brave enough to acknowledge this fact.

Lessen the impact of levels, and place more emphasis on player skill. It's satisfying to level up, but that doesn't compare to the feeling of gaining REAL skill.

[Richard Bruns]

Re: RPG's need an overhaul

Originally posted by Dissident
Surely there is a better system out there isn't there? I have a few ideas running around my head, but I'm not sure if I can explain them adequately here. Writing was never my strong point.

Yes, that system is called GURPS. It has no levels, and hit pints are basically fixed at the beginning based on biology. You can read about it at http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/ Download the "GURPS Lite" document to learn the rules.

[Dis]

well I just had some ideas running around my head like defense values and such. These would go up as you gain experience. I would like to see dexterity play more of a part.

Let's put it this way. Why should a level 20 fighter with a dexterity of 8 avoid damage better than a level 1 fighter with a dexterity of 8?

Dexterity should have more of a meaning for fighter classes in D&D. I know it gives an A/C bonus. But I don't like A/C all that much anyways. I'm sure there is a better way.

some interesting ideas here. Keep them coming.

I like more complicated phsical combat systems. I wouldn't want to make it too complicated. But there should be something more than just attack. Playing a fighter in NWN isn't all that interesting. Sure you have power attack (which I find useless), disarm, and knockdown. But there isn't much variation in their strategy.

And yes most experience should be gained by solving quests. Though I still think monsters should give some experience- esp. tough ones like dragons. What would be interesting is to have monsters give diminishing returns. After killing 50 bugbears, are you really learning anything knew by killing another one?

[Urban Ranger]

Most paper and pencil RPGs don't have levels, hit points, and those antiquated contraptions and concepts anymore. Its harder for CRPGs, but a lot can be attributed to laziness on developers' part. The only really difficult part is granting experience. Sure, a part can come from quests, but completing quests should only give characters bonus experiences, the lion's chunk need to come from them attempting various things. Which is pretty much things in RL work.

[The Mad Monk]

Megatraveller had a system that did experience fairly well, at least by my reckoning. It allowed for learning and improving skills by training, by actually using them "in the field", and by observing others use a given skill.

Combat was nasty. If played "properly", players tended to shy away from all-out street battles and the like, because such could leave one very dead, very quickly.
The biggest problem was that, in an effort to provide an extremely flexible vehicle design system that could cover starships and mopeds, submarines and dirigibles from ancient times into the far future, they made the smaller ones much too fragile. As in, you could total a small car with a single shot from a .32 revolver.

[Traianvs]

More complicated physical combat systems, with more moves available than just 'attack'. Throws, grapples, punches, low attacks, high attacks, defence, disarm, decapitations, trips, etc. Almost moving into beat-em-up territory, in fact.

I second that

Lessen the impact of levels, and place more emphasis on player skill. It's satisfying to level up, but that doesn't compare to the feeling of gaining REAL skill.

That wouldn't work. Because if you're an experienced player, and you start a game from zero, you are already skilled! The opponents at the start of the game will not be a challenge whatsoever.

There would be no replayability in that case.


There should be created a few enemies/challenges at the start of the game that you can't handle yet. For example put a few dragons in a cave near Beregost in BG1
I had the impression a bit that most of the quests early on were made just for that: low level characters... there were not much quests that couldn't be solved with my character back then!