[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] Removing the almighty experience point...

[Travis Casey]

On Jul 26, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Nicholas Koranda wrote:

> * Original Poster:  Vincent Archer
> * archer at frmug.org
> *
> * Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:43 pm

[snip a bit of setup]

> Well, if you have games with XP but no classes/levels, why not have
> a game with classes/levels and no XP?

There are currently paper games like this.

> Ultimately, levels are used in a game to measure one thing:
>
> - Your readiness to accede to a new segment of content
>
> Which is good. The problem is defining how you are "ready" for that
> new content. That's where opinions diverge. Players want the
> readiness to measure your capacity to confront the challenges of
> said content. Alas, the game measures your readiness chiefly by the
> amount of time spent killing mobs/doing quest, not by any form of
> prowess.

If you want it to be "are you ready for a particular level of  
content", why not use that as the indicator?  That is, if a character  
successfully solos a mob of level X, then that character becomes  
level X.  If you want to lessen the luck factor, then require them to  
solo a certain number of mobs of level X or better before becoming  
level X.

For group play, you could lower the effective level of the monster  
based on the number of players in the group -- possibly adjusting for  
each group member based on their current level (so that teaming with  
someone who's much higher level than you would not allow a sudden  
large jump in level).

(Or, for extra fun, allow de-leveling as well -- if you kill too many  
low-level mobs in a row, you actually go down in level!  This would  
tend to discourage using high-level characters to artificially ramp  
up low-level ones.)

> This is due to a simple problem: XP, as a numerical indicator, is a
> form of cash. It's untraceable, and it's exchangeable at will. One
> experience point I got from killing The Grand Boss of the Dungeon is
> completely equal to one experience point I got from killing
> a_weak_mob93. I might have gotten oodles of XP from the Grand Boss,
> but these are equal to the oodles of XP I got from killing hordes of
> those weak mobs. The only difference between those is the time
> spent, which has zero influence on the end result: I have earned X
> amount of XP, I can get to the next level.

Some games use an automatic level adjustment -- that is, the amount  
of XP you get from killing a mob of level X varies according to your  
own level.  If they're too low level, you gain no XP at all.

IMHO, though, monster level often isn't the best thing to judge by,  
because there are other factors that can vastly influence how hard it  
is to kill monsters.  Some major ones are monster placement and  
behavior -- a set of monsters of level X who are placed fairly far  
apart and don't move around are much easier to handle than a set of  
the same level (or even the exact same monsters) who are bunched in  
groups, move around more, have patrols, call for help, run when they  
get low on hit points, etc.

This sort of thing ought to be considered when setting difficulty  
levels, and their corresponding rewards.

> That led me to suggest a different model of levelling. It's called
> the "achievement model", because it caters essentially to achievers,
> of course, like most level-based systems.
>
> You can access level N+1 when, and only when, you have at least N
> achievements of level N or above.

A mud I used to play on had "quest points", which one gained by doing  
quests.  To get to a particular level required both a certain number  
of XP, and a certain number of QP.  The quests you'd already done  
were tracked, so that doing the same quest again would not give any  
quest points.

> Achievements are used to measure your prowess, game knowledge,
> mastery of your class, interaction with other players, whatever.
> Each achievement is individual and unique. A repeat of the exact
> same circumstances means nothing.
>
> For example, killing one mob of level N is a level N achievement
> (however, killing another is not, of course). Visiting a point of
> interest in game that is guarded by hostile level X mobs is an
> achievement of level X. Keeping under control 3 mobs while a 4th is
> fought by your group is a level Z achievement. Defeating the boss of
> Dungeon Y is another achievement. Using "correctly" a skill you can
> gain at level W is itself an achievement of level W. And so on.
>
> The idea is that, if your character is level 20, then by definition,
> you (the player) have a good knowledge of the game world and/or a
> good equipment and/or a knowledge of your class abilities and/or
> experience (in the real world sense) of playing in a group in some
> challenging situations.

The Blue Rose paper RPG states that characters advance a level when  
the GM decides they do.

> How you progress is up to you. At level 4, you can grab 4 moderately
> easy level 4 achievements, which raises you to level 5, where you
> start anew, or you can attempt to get a slightly harder level 7
> achievement (visit an orc-held tower), which not only helps you
> finishing level 4, but 5, 6 and 7 as well.
>
> That kind of achievement-based system behaves very differently from
> an XP-based levelling system. It rewards real world knowledge and
> skill, notably. An experienced player can roll a new character, and
> very quickly "level", by simply running to various places he already
> knows, and reproducing feats he's already seen by other players he
> grouped with.

I can see this as being exploitable, though... someone else could set  
things up to make an achievement easy (e.g., a high-level character  
clearing the orcs from tower of your example for a newbie).  And I've  
seen plenty of high-levels "run someone around" to help them get to  
places they couldn't normally get to.  Thus, while the intent of the  
system is to reward real-world knowledge and skill, it's still  
possible for someone to get a high level without learning much of  
anything.

(Of course, that's possible with other systems as well -- I'm simply  
pointing out that this system doesn't necessarily solve everything it  
seems to at first glance.)

> The largest problem with that system is, of course, coming up with
> achievements. As the level increase, the amount of achievements
> required to level does, which requires the game designers to come up
> with suitable measures of additional prowess in game. This is a lot
> harder than merely doing a copy of existing monsters, raising their
> level by 10, wrapping a new skin over them, and putting them in a
> new area, and calling it a new expansion "with 10 brand new
> levels".

Except that you can do just that.  There's nothing described in the  
preceding setup that prevents it -- all you have to do is mark  
defeating them, getting into their area, defeating their boss, etc.  
as achievements of the new, higher levels.

> If you plan a level 40 cap, you have to come with at least
> 780 different achievments, just to have at least enough to finish
> each level in turn, and the amount you need to design grows with the
> square of the level cap.

If you want every achievement to really be unique, then you'll  
probably have to come up with a lot more than that, if you want the  
game to have any replay value.  Further, if you want some  
achievements to be specific to classes, races, professions, etc.,  
then that will raise the number of achievements needed even further.

Can you come up with 30 different achievements that are *really*  
different, and don't just fall into a handful of patterns?  When you  
get right down to it, "achievement" is nothing more than a broader  
term for a quest... the "quest" may be more generic in some cases  
than we usually see (e.g., "defeat a monster of level X+", or "create  
an item that requires skill level Z"), but they're the same type of  
thing.  That leads me to suspect that we'd see the same thing happen  
with "achievements" that already happens with quests:  what's  
supposed to be a unique and interesting experience becomes a pick  
from a grab-bag of a few types.

> Some players will also find themselves locked out of higher levels.
> Unless they manage to master enough aspects of the game, it is
> physically impossible for them, no matter how long they can play per
> week, to access the higher end of the game (the elite syndrome: only
> "skilled" players can be of high level), which might discourage
> players.

... or get someone else to level their characters for them, or help  
them level.  If you want to lock lesser-skilled players out of higher  
levels, you'd need to either allow losing levels (so that poor play  
of a high-level character would cause it to become lower level), or  
eliminate character levels entirely and make the game rely purely on  
player skill (so that in order to handle difficult areas, you have to  
have the skill to do it yourself.)

> However, no player can ever accuse your game to encourage grind
> (repeating mindlessly the easiest task you can find for your level)
> or call it a treadmill, if the requirements for real skills keep
> changing as you level.

Unless you really can come up with hundreds of unique tasks, they  
certainly can.  People complain now about the repetitiveness of  
quests all the time.

--
Travis S. Casey
efindel at gmail.com