[MUD-Dev2] To Level or Not to Level

[Mikael Andersson]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Jeffrey Kesselman <jeffpk at gmail.com> wrote:
> This actually is NOT out of line with the [t]rends?in the past 10 years or so
> in pen and paper gaming. ?Point based systems tend to be much less
> experience oriented then the old class and level systems.
>
> When you ask 'what is the purpose of leveling" its an interesting question.
> I know the purpose in a pen and paper campaign-- it simulates the dramatic
> arc of a hero's journey from a nobody to an all important somebody.

Jeffrey makes a good point here, although the point is not "leveling
is outdated and useless".

If you look at pen and paper RPG theory development work done at frex
The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com) over the last several years, one
predominant model (known as The Big Model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Model) suggests three different
"Creative Agendas" of RPG players: Gamism, Narrativism, and
Simulationism. It further suggests that the actual game mechanics the
game employs alters what agendas the game can successfully cater to.
Without going into all the nooks, crannies and controversies
surrounding TBM, the point is simply this:

Leveling, rapid progression and specialization as mechanics works well
in games where the Creative Agenda of the participants is to
demonstrate their expertise with the game system (Gamism).
Point-buy, slow progression and generalization as mechanics works well
in games where the Creative Agenda of the participants is to live in a
simulated world and take on alternate personas (Simulationism).
De-emphasis on character aptitude, emphasis on story-logic, and a
wholly character-transformative "progression" system works well in
games where the Creative Agenda of the participants is to tell and
experience stories (Narrativism).

Leveling is the system still used by the latest edition of "D&D", and
not for legacy reasons - the entire rest of the game underwent a
massive overhaul. Leveling serves its purpose in D&D 4E, whether that
purpose is to min-max your character or experience a "hero's journey".

Point-buy is the system used as far back as ye ole "Call of Cthulhu".
Most point-buy systems can be used to cleverly min-max your character
but that is not their purpose (in fact, most game texts warn against
this behaviour): the purpose is to allow the player to represent their
perfectly realized fictional persona in the game's mechanics.

In a game like "My Life With Master" the characters aren't described
by ability-centric statistics at all but rather with measures of story
attributes like "Weariness" and "Self-loathing". This isn't so useful
in discussion surrounding MMORPGs, as games serving narrativist
agendas can't really be implemented through computational power alone
at this stage. "Interlocked dynamic systems" can come close, but even
then is probably best served using Simulationist techniques (see Eve
Online) with players piecing together personal stories from
pseudo-random system elements.

So, long story short, I think NCsoft's decision regarding CoH/V's is a
good one, as I agree with earlier posters that the game caters more to
players looking to experience a superhero/villain simulator than
actually outsmart each other in PvP combat or boasting competitions.
Removing the gatekeepers will allow them more immersion into the game
world.

But do I think this is the "new way" for MMORPGs to go? No, no more
than I think D&D 4E should've used a skill-based point-buy system,
which would've broken its core premise. Simply, it's a more suitable
mechanic _for that game_.