I do like that system, prevents you from XP farming and forces you to focus on the quests.

Maybe I'm misremembering or something, but I heard with Wizardry and some Elderscroll games there was a issue where if you didn't take the time to level your skills with use, you'd struggle because of level scaling. Since level scaling only applied to the overall level and not to the skill levels. Seems a bad design to me, But I do hate level scaling.

I like having skills improve by use because, unlike with an XP system, the actions taken during battle (or otherwise) matter as far as the character's long term growth is considered. With XP, you only think about winning the battle and resource management, but when skills improve through use, then you start taking into account character growth.

What you refer to as "grinding" (I *really* don't like the term) can be mitigated via diminishing returns (if your skill is high, it's harder to increase further), along with increased rewards for harder tasks. (Don't implement one without the other; some of the Elder Scrolls games make this mistake.) (There's also the fact that I sometimes enjoy what you call "grinding".)

Also, this sort of system makes it feasible to have more diverse skillsets on a character, as having a high value in one skill doesn't hurt the growth of others.

Dungeon Master is a good game; it's the sort of game that spawned the likes of Eye of the Beholder, Lands of Lore (1, not 2 or 3), and Legend of Grimrock. You have 4 classes you can level up in, and your actions determin3 which class you earn XP in.

You mean like in Order of the Stick? :D

No, where everyone levels up at the same time based on story progression and XP is not used.
I do feel like you wouldn't be keen on checkpoint type leveling though (one of the seeds of the thread), since you prefer more mechanical/numbers-based play and aren't keen on narrative progression. Checkpoint leveling is when you level only based on story (slash equivalent to, percent progression, new region, level-per-dungeon-level, you only gain new powers by acquiring a new crystal etc). You also tend to support leveling as a way for a game to self-correct difficulty by allowing a player to out-level a given area [not disagreeing; just that you're one of the more vocal proponents of that].

And, yeah, permanent missables in a problem, so a checkpoint leveling system would have to be designed for it.

And back to main topic of the thread: one could argue pretty strongly that Metroid games [which are not RPGs, thank deities] are "checkpoint leveling". You only get more powerful when you find and get the new power-up.

I'd say that the Metroid games are more "exploration leveling". As you explore, you find permanent power ups that make you stronger.

That could be said, to some degree, of the Zelda series, even if there is actually one entry in the series that uses XP (but that still doesn't make it an RPG).

Ehhh not exactly. First most of this falls under the umbrella of equipment, not levels. Like literally equipment. You want to say equipment strength is a form of levels, I guess but then that opens a whole can of worms regarding many games. Like that game that gave you one level per level of dungeon you descend to also get equipment dropped from monsters, so I suppose since you got stronger equipment from monsters it was a sort of separate exp from level system of descending. But this second level system is more temporary because of the increasing strength of equipment.

I suppose more health upgrade and stronger attack upgrades are closer to "level" like then getting the ability to roll or a boomerang that can bring items to you.

That said, if we consider equipment and max health boosts as a form of "level" then Metroid and Zelda is not (at least entirely) "check point leveling" as defined by what Mqstout said and I agree with as story/game play progress based leveling. Especially the health increase finds since most of them are optional and hidden/puzzle locked and not gotten through playing the main game story.

Why do you need "levels"? Levels are just an abstraction to meter the acquisition of actual abilities in a traditional progression system. Sure, you could do "level up" at various points and keep your abstractions for stat/HP/etc gain, or "skill points" or whatever. But why not go the full step and uncouple them. You open a chest and the Fire2 spell is in it. You can use it now!

And there are games (some that might even be considered RPGs) that don't have XP nor levels but have progression based solely on money (that you can then spend to convert to other things, like buying gear or skill training or whatever) or games that don't have stat bumps with your "level ups" except when you find "strength pills" (or whatever) in treasure chests while exploring.

They're all permutations on the same thing to different degrees. There's room for all to exist in different games too. (I do appreciate your starting this thread.)

ADDENDUM: Many "roguelike" games use this type of progression. Monster Train/Slay the Spire: After each fight ("level of the dungeon"), you get a new card to add to your deck. Depending on where you go on the map, you might get your choice of an artifact, or another card. Etc. So many permutations.

EDIT2: Or FTL, you get "scrap" as your primary reward. You can spend it on myriad things of your choice. The way in which you win the battle or resolve the event can impact how much scrap you get after it.

The main thing for me is to avoid motivation for grinding thus whatever gets you stronger should be finite. Thus getting stronger because you earned "scraps" is no good because that can be endless.

Main benefit of avoiding grinding is people not wasting time just doing battles. Thus avoiding random endless encounters and finite enemies as well.

Another benefit is knowing your playing skill levels. If a enemy is too tough, you grind a bit and get some better equipment as well as more levels. So did you now win because you're skilled or because you grinded out more strength?

Now this isn't for everyone. Some people like the dopamine hit of upgrading through game-play and finally winning a battle even if you didn't earn it through skill.

StSpire is different not only in not having levels(well it is a card game) but also because the battles themselves are finite, no chance to grind a win.

Level caps are a thing. Just pace XP to where it caps out around midgame, and then allow for respec-ing.

For whatever reason, GOG wouldn't allow my first posts to go through, so I'll answer you question about Pillars of Eternity here. The wiki has more info for which this was sourced:

Notable sources of experience are:

Completing quests - It is the most effective way to level up your character and your companions. Following the main quest line will only earn a moderate amount of XP. If you're looking towards developing your character to max level with a large party of six, you'll need to undertake optional side quests.

Stronghold adventures for your idle companions (Pillars of Eternity only)

Bounties - you can get a fairly big amount of experience by collecting bounties.

Exploring and interacting with the world - You'll receive experience upon discovering new locations (Areas, and some buildings and caves) and by interacting with the various objects found within (disarming traps, opening chests, etc.).

Completing scripted interactions and encounters.

Updating bestiary entries - you receive small amount of experience for discover the strengths and weaknesses of the various creatures you battle.

Apart from the above, no experience is earned for killing anything! The only other advantages gained from combat are clearing the area, earning money, and finding random loot. Part of the reason for this design decision is to reward players who invest in the Stealth stat and avoid combat by sneaking by their enemies.

All experience is granted to the entire party on a per-character basis, and is subject to bonuses in the form of experience modifiers. When experience gain is shown in the party, it is often the sum of experience that was gained for all party members, including bonuses (with some exceptions).

Such a chest actually exists in Final Fantasy 3. (With that said, you still need to be of the right job and be a high enough level to have MP of that slot.)

There's also things like magic in Fire Emblem and early SaGa, where you get a spellbook, and can then use it to cast a spell; it has limited uses, but so do weapons.

I'd think there has to be some leveling benefits from doing activities and fighting, not just by events. If you only do events based you encourage purely to avoid everything except the events and those that lead to it. Certainly this is useful for say stealth games where killing is discouraged, thief, VtMB is mentioned which goes about on the ship where you are told to not make trouble (and if you make too much trouble you can trigger a bad ending).

Though what qualifies as a 'level' can be broken apart. For RPG games, it is hit points, stats and abilities. But if you got easy leveling in say fighting, or level primarily affecting your hitpoints and a couple skills, while the rest is done via events then it might balance in a different way.

Mmm kinda enjoyed Skyrim to be honest... Skills raised by use, and level is hitpoints stamina and mana and perk points.

Haven't yet played it, but iirc Underrail has something like that in its pre-set experience system (there's also an option for a more traditional system), you get experience for finding "oddities", that is essentially for exploring the game world, not primarily for killing things.

I like the process of getting stronger and of seeing the numbers increase at a modest late.

(It's worth noting that there's basically an entire game genre, incremental games, about this.)

For taking the motivation for "grinding" away, I think I prefer an approach where your power is essentially softcapped, with the softcap being high enough to make the final boss manageable for a typical player.


Drawback is that XP then becomes pointless in the later game.

(See Ys 1 for an example of this, though no respecing since there's no choices to be made when doing so.)