It doesn't have to be levels, but my character must make meaningful progress. I do not consider titles, cooler-looking gear, or non-beneficial game fame as progress.
Levels cannot be removed from existing fantasy MMORPGs because that's the base motivation of those games. There are plenty of people here who seem to believe that RPG means leveling. In fact, that's not the case. I brought up EVE Online as a means of suggesting that games exist where leveling is not the focus of entertainment. Unfortunately, it seems that most people haven't gotten around to trying EVE Online.
In EVE Online, the focus of gameplay is what you're trying to get done in a context of galactic warfare. The economy supports that game of galactic warfare, which eats materiel like a teenage boy eats food. So instead of having the game tell you that you are now level N, you tell yourself that today was a good day because you are now richer than you were yesterday. Or that you picked up another two PvP kills. Or you can now manufacture something that you couldn't yesterday. Or that you filled three more orders for ships. Or that you found a great PvE complex. Many activities are spinoffs of the game of galactic warfare.
And those are just the little goals. If you directly join in on the game of galactic conquest, you may pat yourself on the back for scouting out the enemy fleet. Or for being a successful squadron commander. Or even a fleet commander. Perhaps you are the president of your corporation and just had a successful recruiting drive for members. More substantially, perhaps your alliance just broke the back of an enemy and captured several systems.
It continues like that. Instead of grinding monsters and raids to climb the ladder of levels and gear, you climg the ladder of gear and money so that you can accomplish your goals. A sufficiently broad and deep game will allow you to pick from many possible personal goals.
One thing that EVE Online also underscores is that the game is a multiplayer game. Much of the interesting stuff in EVE Online is focused on interactions wth other players. It's that game of galactic conquest again, with its many spinoff activities.
I think the fantasy game to that came closest to that experience was Ultima Online. In it, players could focus on many tasks and activities other than simply grinding up character abilities and power. Once they had their abilities and power, they tried to do something with it. That's the missing part - what to do with abilities and power. If the game has things do with abilities and power then that game can discard the accrual of abilities and power and simply let players pursue their goals.
the main problem with eve is, the game have too much info its kill a lot of people out there wo don't care/want to read or think, it not like other games you just click on the mob click again to attack adn press one key to use a skill mob death rinse reapeat, its not phantasy a lot of people really don't even look in the game if they can't cast a fireball or use a uber axe and the first of all its not newbie friendly, anyone new the first time he step outside of a secure zone he will be death and lose everything, that kills a lot of mood to try again and rebuild.
eve is was shadowbane was before the plug, anyone new if not willing to play all the time can't get any guild or roll cahrs they wanted you to be you couldn't play for fun there.
but the funny part is pretty much all cities less the 4 npcs ones are player made and maintened by guild alliances, pvp all time if you find someone who is not allie, all equips are crafted using mats you get from mines using npcs(all crafiting and collect was made by npcs) but to control a mine you need to attack it you could siege too, some says some sieges did take like 4-5 days to end it with both attackers and defenders log in and off to sleep or any otehr emergency and letting some guard npcs keep the numbers up, lvl there was almost no existance since a lvl 75 could power lvl you to 75 from lvl one, farming was easy too, pretty much what everyone here in this forum ask/want/wish for
though they plug the server for lack of people even when it was F2P for like 2 years or more
To all the people who posted about needing progression. The game I am talking about would have a form of progression. That's what the world level is for. The world level unlocks alot of cosmetic stuff, but also unlocks more quests of harder difficulty. I said these things in the OP. For all of you that keep saying it can't be a MMORPG, your wrong. First off MMO means nothing more than massive multiplayer online, that's it! Second off RPG means nothing more then role playing game. In other words a game in which you play a certain role. No where in the meaning of MMORPG does it say it has to have progression, exploring, fighting, crafting, or anything at all has to be there. It's meaning is just what it says and nothing more or less.
Everyone is so used to just seeing those types of things being part of the games they play, that they are just stuck inside that train of thought. Kinda like if a person sat in a chair doing the same thing over and over for 25 years, nothing else. You would think that person could easily continue that without thought, or sight as to what they were doing. Thats how gamers have become with games. Your all over thinking the meaning of MMORPG. Your minds are stuck to far inside the box. Open your minds to other possiblities. Everything doesn't always have to be so black, and white.
Levels are made a a simple way to handle that characters becomes better. They were invented for D&D as a really simple way that wouldn't require too much calculations or take long time.
For pen and paper RPGs are there many different alternatives both without levels or systems that partly use levels but flirts with skills as well (Palladium are probably the biggest).
In some P&P games you get XP for defeating oponents. In others you get a few XP after each time you play with maybe a few bonus XP if you did something exceptional. Others don't have XP but let you make a roll for each skill you used during the session, if you succed you raise yourself a few percentage. And there are more ways even.
You can easily make a MMO with say Runequests or Warhammer fantasy RPGs mechanics straight off, no levels but will still be fun.
What you talking about is however just letting everyone start at max level like a FPS game. It could still be fun but it is not on my top list.
Ironically, D&D's "simple" level system has devolved into an absurd level of complexity that is far more unwieldy to use than a skill-based system like RuneQuest. It even fails when implemented in an MMO like DDO where the computer handles all those calculations for you.
Levels are a holdover from the dawn age of tabletop RPGs. I would very much like to see them gone and for systems to adopt much more intuitive mechanics that loosely map to how a person would learn and improve in reality. Levels are an easy way to limit a player's exposure to content, which gives the developers a quick way to exert some control over a player's progression. But it's not the only way, nor is it the most elegant.
By the way, thumbs up for the RuneQuest reference. It's so rare to come across another wizened tabletop connoisseur.
It seems that a lot of people consider leveling skills, leveling characters, or gear upgrades to be the main divide between RPG and FPS games. So pretty much there is only one way to make such a MMO viable, and that is to change the progression entirely.
Progression is the main factor that contributes to your sense of accomplishment, getting a new level, new piece of gear, higher skill level. I propose that a different kind of progression could be just as fun and engaging as a level based one.
I think a skill unlock system would be pretty unique to the MMO genre. I would say it would be similar to Mega Man, where you not only unlock new skills for defeating powerful monster, but also from completing quests, crafting, trading, or purchasing from merchants.
You would be able to slot a certain amount of skills you discovered on your adventure.
The skills dont level up, your character doesn't level up, gear is only cosmetic, however, you still have the sense of progression from unlocking new skills to swap out.
As for combat in such a game, there can definitely be progressively harder monsters to fight as well, because you can make certain monsters near unkillable without a certain skill set. For example, you build your character to use nothing but fire skills, the fire elemental will probably just grow more powerful if you throw a fireball at him. So instead, you can switch out a fire skill for an Ice skill instead so as to make your efforts productive. If however, you do not have the Ice skill yet, you better have a friend that does, or you will have to go hunting for the elusive ice attack.
This skill system would cover a broad spectrum of attacks, buffs, debuffs, elemtal powers, etc..
This game would be like if Mega Man and Guild Wars had a baby.
You my friend understand what it is that I am talking about in my OP.
Also people try to think how much data the level system, or skill level system, and the devs trying to balance all of it takes up. If all that was simplified in a game like I'm talking about, imagine all the extra stuff they could add to such a game. The devs could maybe add a good AI system to a few npc factions that try to form guild type groups and build there own cities that players could take from them. Or maybe the npc factions could try to take player cities from the players. Then there could be a true PvPvE like aion tried but failed cuz the enemy AI isn't good enough. All the different things they would have room for could maybe have room for better graphics in game but require less from the systems from better coding. I'm not a dev or know what it takes but I am sure it would leave alot of room for better stuff everywhere else.
Second off RPG means nothing more then role playing game. In other words a game in which you play a certain role. No where in the meaning of MMORPG does it say it has to have progression, exploring, fighting, crafting, or anything at all has to be there. It's meaning is just what it says and nothing more or less.
RPG—the abbreviation—stands for roleplaying game. Or occasionally Rocket-Propelled Grenade.
RPG—the video game genre—means a game where your character(s) become more powerful and/or versatile as a result of their experiences/training.
The idea that you can technically slap the RPG label on a game because it involves playing a role is nonsense. If you don't like the conventional definition then don't use the term, but don't think that you can enforce a different definition based on a technicality.
RPG—the abbreviation—stands for roleplaying game. Or occasionally Rocket-Propelled Grenade.
RPG—the video game genre—means a game where your character(s) become more powerful and/or versatile as a result of their experiences/training.
The idea that you can technically slap the RPG label on a game because it involves playing a role is nonsense. If you don't like the conventional definition then don't use the term, but don't think that you can enforce a different definition based on a technicality.
That's why I like saying that CRPGs aren't any more like the original P&P RPGs than JRPGs are.
As for combat in such a game, there can definitely be progressively harder monsters to fight as well, because you can make certain monsters near unkillable without a certain skill set. For example, you build your character to use nothing but fire skills, the fire elemental will probably just grow more powerful if you throw a fireball at him. So instead, you can switch out a fire skill for an Ice skill instead so as to make your efforts productive. If however, you do not have the Ice skill yet, you better have a friend that does, or you will have to go hunting for the elusive ice attack.
Eww, unkillable without the skill or bring a friend and watch. Do not like that at all. I dont mind adding in skills but forcing style just isnt my idea of a fun game.
However, the OP requirement is no combat advantage new to old player and adding in new skills gives theold player an advantage (btw, damage is untyped in his game so fire/ice all do the same, same effect, so you cant build your mob).
I think the amount of folks trying to spin off the original concept...damage all the same, skills all the same only appearances are different...strongly suggests that folks dont really want a game where only appearances change.
Second off RPG means nothing more then role playing game. In other words a game in which you play a certain role. No where in the meaning of MMORPG does it say it has to have progression, exploring, fighting, crafting, or anything at all has to be there. It's meaning is just what it says and nothing more or less.
RPG—the abbreviation—stands for roleplaying game. Or occasionally Rocket-Propelled Grenade.
RPG—the video game genre—means a game where your character(s) become more powerful and/or versatile as a result of their experiences/training.
The idea that you can technically slap the RPG label on a game because it involves playing a role is nonsense. If you don't like the conventional definition then don't use the term, but don't think that you can enforce a different definition based on a technicality.
No I am sorry it purely means role playing game. Any game that you play where you are role playing a character in the game is in fact a role playing game. If this wasn't true people that play live action RPG's wouldn't really be playing a RPG. I never played but I am pretty sure they don't go around playing fighting and pretending to level up while they play. Your thinking is far to narrow minded. I said this before everything is not so black and white there are many shades of grey too.
This is off-topic, but I have been playing a game I bought a steam a few weeks ago called Magika. It's a small Solo / Co-op game similar to what we are describing. You start of with 8 elements, and you can combine them to create different attacks. Throughout the game you also find skillbooks that teach you special skill combinations.
Seeing a game like this on a more massive scale, with deeper lore and role-play tools would be amazing.
Perhaps my experiences with RPGs are different than most. RPGs were always about the adventure for me, never the numbers. Whenever I played tabletop with my friends, whoever was GM would create an epic quest, bring cool props (like scribble map with the edges burned off), a cool drawing, or maybe a song for the taven. Stuff that added to the depth of the game.
The game never really was about getting +1 damage or gaining levels. It was about role-playing, not roll-playing.
This is off-topic, but I have been playing a game I bought a steam a few weeks ago called Magika. It's a small Solo / Co-op game similar to what we are describing. You start of with 8 elements, and you can combine them to create different attacks. Throughout the game you also find skillbooks that teach you special skill combinations.
Seeing a game like this on a more massive scale, with deeper lore and role-play tools would be amazing.
Perhaps my experiences with RPGs are different than most. RPGs were always about the adventure for me, never the numbers. Whenever I played tabletop with my friends, whoever was GM would create an epic quest, bring cool props (like scribble map with the edges burned off), a cool drawing, or maybe a song for the taven. Stuff that added to the depth of the game.
The game never really was about getting +1 damage or gaining levels. It was about role-playing, not roll-playing.
You know what. You just figured out everyones problem with my version being an RPG. The ones saying it's not are confusing the first word in RPG. The real first word is ROLE, but people are so programed by the corp style that they are thinking it is ROLL. You have solved everyones confusion, honestly. I'm not being a smart ass either. Thats the problem here, the corp mindset has replaced the meaning of ROLE with ROLL.
Another thing I just thought of is this game would most likely have a better community then most other games. The reason I think that is cuz people wouldn't be mean for someone using the wrong build. Sure there would still be the gankers that piss people off, but there would be one major thing gone from the game at least.
Also people try to think how much data the level system, or skill level system, and the devs trying to balance all of it takes up. If all that was simplified in a game like I'm talking about, imagine all the extra stuff they could add to such a game. The devs could maybe add a good AI system to a few npc factions that try to form guild type groups and build there own cities that players could take from them. Or maybe the npc factions could try to take player cities from the players. Then there could be a true PvPvE like aion tried but failed cuz the enemy AI isn't good enough. All the different things they would have room for could maybe have room for better graphics in game but require less from the systems from better coding. I'm not a dev or know what it takes but I am sure it would leave alot of room for better stuff everywhere else.
You are not describing a levelless game. You are simply replacing one set of 'levels' with another. A level is simply a term for a progression system. You can give everyone just one standard ability which never changes, so long as other parts of the game require some form of sliding scale (economy for example) then the games primary 'level focus' will simply move to credit differences.
Would I play an mmo without combat levels/skills? Sure.
Would I play a completely levelless mmo? No.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
No I am sorry it purely means role playing game. Any game that you play where you are role playing a character in the game is in fact a role playing game. If this wasn't true people that play live action RPG's wouldn't really be playing a RPG. I never played but I am pretty sure they don't go around playing fighting and pretending to level up while they play. Your thinking is far to narrow minded. I said this before everything is not so black and white there are many shades of grey too.
By your definition an FPS is an RPG.
Most LARPs do have a lvl system and you do lvl up based on participation (I can think of 3 off the top of my head with Amtgaurd being the most noted).
However, a group like the SCA do not call themselves a LARP (even though they do roleplay), they consider themselves a historic re-inactment group and most would probably be offended if you 'reduced' them to a LARP .
Now, it is true that you can have an RPG without lvling, but these are very few and far between (I cant think of one) but the important thing to remember is its all about the character, never about the player. While I am not going to say your desire is not an RPG, you do have character focus development (just not around combat), you are very much on the boarder as your real focus isnt the character its the player combat skill (everything else is more window dressing).
NOTE: when I say lvling I am talking about a progression system where the character gets strong not necessarily a specific character level.
Most LARPs do have a lvl system and you do lvl up based on participation (I can think of 3 off the top of my head with Amtgaurd being the most noted).
However, a group like the SCA do not call themselves a LARP (even though they do roleplay), they consider themselves a historic re-inactment group and most would probably be offended if you 'reduced' them to a LARP .
Now, it is true that you can have an RPG without lvling, but these are very few and far between (I cant think of one) but the important thing to remember is its all about the character, never about the player. While I am not going to say your desire is not an RPG, you do have character focus development (just not around combat), you are very much on the boarder as your real focus isnt the character its the player combat skill (everything else is more window dressing).
NOTE: when I say lvling I am talking about a progression system where the character gets strong not necessarily a specific character level.
I had a similar argument with my friend regarding RTS games. When I told him League of Legends was the best RTS game I had played in a long time, he said, "League of Legends is not a RTS because you don't build a base to create an army."
My interpretation of the definition of RTS is strategizing in real-time. To me, League of Legends is no different from a game of basketball. Both games involve making decisions in real-time.
The issue is not that my interpretation of the definition is wrong, its just that the definition derived from past game experiences became prominent, resulting in the loss of the original intended meaning. The RTS term was created during a time when turn-based strategy games dominated the market, it was a way to define the game as to set it apart from the rest.
The problem is that the definition of RTS is so broad that there needs to be a sub genre created, such as city-building RTS or Tactical RTS.
The same can be said for RPGs. The definition is so broad in scope that there needs to be labels to create a more specific definition.
Most LARPs do have a lvl system and you do lvl up based on participation (I can think of 3 off the top of my head with Amtgaurd being the most noted).
However, a group like the SCA do not call themselves a LARP (even though they do roleplay), they consider themselves a historic re-inactment group and most would probably be offended if you 'reduced' them to a LARP .
Now, it is true that you can have an RPG without lvling, but these are very few and far between (I cant think of one) but the important thing to remember is its all about the character, never about the player. While I am not going to say your desire is not an RPG, you do have character focus development (just not around combat), you are very much on the boarder as your real focus isnt the character its the player combat skill (everything else is more window dressing).
NOTE: when I say lvling I am talking about a progression system where the character gets strong not necessarily a specific character level.
I had a similar argument with my friend regarding RTS games. When I told him League of Legends was the best RTS game I had played in a long time, he said, "League of Legends is not a RTS because you don't build a base to create an army."
My interpretation of the definition of RTS is strategizing in real-time. To me, League of Legends is no different from a game of basketball. Both games involve making decisions in real-time.
The issue is not that my interpretation of the definition is wrong, its just that the definition derived from past game experiences became prominent, resulting in the loss of the original intended meaning. The RTS term was created during a time when turn-based strategy games dominated the market, it was a way to define the game as to set it apart from the rest.
The problem is that the definition of RTS is so broad that there needs to be a sub genre created, such as city-building RTS or Tactical RTS.
The same can be said for RPGs. The definition is so broad in scope that there needs to be labels to create a more specific definition.
Yes everything you said is very true. Namely the highlighted areas.
No I am sorry it purely means role playing game. Any game that you play where you are role playing a character in the game is in fact a role playing game. If this wasn't true people that play live action RPG's wouldn't really be playing a RPG. I never played but I am pretty sure they don't go around playing fighting and pretending to level up while they play. Your thinking is far to narrow minded. I said this before everything is not so black and white there are many shades of grey too.
Live action RPGs? Okay, you mean Live Action Roleplaying Games or LARP for short. That's a use of RPG the abbreviation. The RPG in "live action RPG" is clearly not a reference to the video game genre. In fact, "live action" and "video" are basically mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Justin83x
You know what. You just figured out everyones problem with my version being an RPG. The ones saying it's not are confusing the first word in RPG. The real first word is ROLE, but people are so programed by the corp style that they are thinking it is ROLL. You have solved everyones confusion, honestly. I'm not being a smart ass either. Thats the problem here, the corp mindset has replaced the meaning of ROLE with ROLL.
...no. This argument—that all video games in which you play the role of a character in the world can be called roleplaying games or RPGs—is nothing new. It's been around for as long as Final Fantasy, and neither you nor he are brilliant for picking up on the role/roll homonym.
Take a hint from TheRegulator there. Basketball and League of Legends are both games in which come up with a strategy as you play in real time, but he accepts that there is a more prominent definition for "RTS" that is more specific than all real time games with strategy.
Well, a levelless game wouldnt quite work like that. There would be actual gear teirs, and the gear would have abilities with it that actually were improvements, and you would use it to get better gear faster, and the ai idea is excellent, i have thought of it myself before, and as to exspansions, once again gear progression.
Ultima Online, one of my favorite all time MMOs. No levels, just skill raising based on what weapon, profession or stats you used the most. The armor and weapons were slight upgrades if anything.
Well, a levelless game wouldnt quite work like that. There would be actual gear teirs, and the gear would have abilities with it that actually were improvements, and you would use it to get better gear faster, and the ai idea is excellent, i have thought of it myself before, and as to exspansions, once again gear progression.
You do understand the part where I said that all gear gives a very minimal boost, and that ALL gear has the same stats. The only things diff about new gear is purely cosmetic.
My question about your post though is why wouldn't it work like that? Who says it wouldn't? It has never been done.
People also keep bringing up UO, but they forget the part where I said ALL character stats, and proficiencies stay the same the whole game. UO as I understand it has skill progression level ups.
I'm curious if the voting stayed the way it has, and say 1 million total people voted total. I wonder if a game company would make a game like that. After about 75% about of the million said they would play or at least try it. That would be 750,000 right there alone. Plus you add it being hyped,and maybe alot more. Just something cool to think about.
I'm curious if the voting stayed the way it has, and say 1 million total people voted total. I wonder if a game company would make a game like that. After about 75% about of the million said they would play or at least try it. That would be 750,000 right there alone. Plus you add it being hyped,and maybe alot more. Just something cool to think about.
Doubt it. Developers with money wont risk deviating from the norm. I think they lack creativity as well.
Comments
the main problem with eve is, the game have too much info its kill a lot of people out there wo don't care/want to read or think, it not like other games you just click on the mob click again to attack adn press one key to use a skill mob death rinse reapeat, its not phantasy a lot of people really don't even look in the game if they can't cast a fireball or use a uber axe and the first of all its not newbie friendly, anyone new the first time he step outside of a secure zone he will be death and lose everything, that kills a lot of mood to try again and rebuild.
eve is was shadowbane was before the plug, anyone new if not willing to play all the time can't get any guild or roll cahrs they wanted you to be you couldn't play for fun there.
but the funny part is pretty much all cities less the 4 npcs ones are player made and maintened by guild alliances, pvp all time if you find someone who is not allie, all equips are crafted using mats you get from mines using npcs(all crafiting and collect was made by npcs) but to control a mine you need to attack it you could siege too, some says some sieges did take like 4-5 days to end it with both attackers and defenders log in and off to sleep or any otehr emergency and letting some guard npcs keep the numbers up, lvl there was almost no existance since a lvl 75 could power lvl you to 75 from lvl one, farming was easy too, pretty much what everyone here in this forum ask/want/wish for
though they plug the server for lack of people even when it was F2P for like 2 years or more
To all the people who posted about needing progression. The game I am talking about would have a form of progression. That's what the world level is for. The world level unlocks alot of cosmetic stuff, but also unlocks more quests of harder difficulty. I said these things in the OP. For all of you that keep saying it can't be a MMORPG, your wrong. First off MMO means nothing more than massive multiplayer online, that's it! Second off RPG means nothing more then role playing game. In other words a game in which you play a certain role. No where in the meaning of MMORPG does it say it has to have progression, exploring, fighting, crafting, or anything at all has to be there. It's meaning is just what it says and nothing more or less.
Everyone is so used to just seeing those types of things being part of the games they play, that they are just stuck inside that train of thought. Kinda like if a person sat in a chair doing the same thing over and over for 25 years, nothing else. You would think that person could easily continue that without thought, or sight as to what they were doing. Thats how gamers have become with games. Your all over thinking the meaning of MMORPG. Your minds are stuck to far inside the box. Open your minds to other possiblities. Everything doesn't always have to be so black, and white.
Ironically, D&D's "simple" level system has devolved into an absurd level of complexity that is far more unwieldy to use than a skill-based system like RuneQuest. It even fails when implemented in an MMO like DDO where the computer handles all those calculations for you.
Levels are a holdover from the dawn age of tabletop RPGs. I would very much like to see them gone and for systems to adopt much more intuitive mechanics that loosely map to how a person would learn and improve in reality. Levels are an easy way to limit a player's exposure to content, which gives the developers a quick way to exert some control over a player's progression. But it's not the only way, nor is it the most elegant.
By the way, thumbs up for the RuneQuest reference. It's so rare to come across another wizened tabletop connoisseur.
You my friend understand what it is that I am talking about in my OP.
Also people try to think how much data the level system, or skill level system, and the devs trying to balance all of it takes up. If all that was simplified in a game like I'm talking about, imagine all the extra stuff they could add to such a game. The devs could maybe add a good AI system to a few npc factions that try to form guild type groups and build there own cities that players could take from them. Or maybe the npc factions could try to take player cities from the players. Then there could be a true PvPvE like aion tried but failed cuz the enemy AI isn't good enough. All the different things they would have room for could maybe have room for better graphics in game but require less from the systems from better coding. I'm not a dev or know what it takes but I am sure it would leave alot of room for better stuff everywhere else.
RPG—the abbreviation—stands for roleplaying game. Or occasionally Rocket-Propelled Grenade.
RPG—the video game genre—means a game where your character(s) become more powerful and/or versatile as a result of their experiences/training.
The idea that you can technically slap the RPG label on a game because it involves playing a role is nonsense. If you don't like the conventional definition then don't use the term, but don't think that you can enforce a different definition based on a technicality.
That's why I like saying that CRPGs aren't any more like the original P&P RPGs than JRPGs are.
The meaning has shifted over time.
Eww, unkillable without the skill or bring a friend and watch. Do not like that at all. I dont mind adding in skills but forcing style just isnt my idea of a fun game.
However, the OP requirement is no combat advantage new to old player and adding in new skills gives theold player an advantage (btw, damage is untyped in his game so fire/ice all do the same, same effect, so you cant build your mob).
I think the amount of folks trying to spin off the original concept...damage all the same, skills all the same only appearances are different...strongly suggests that folks dont really want a game where only appearances change.
I would atleast try it out.
No I am sorry it purely means role playing game. Any game that you play where you are role playing a character in the game is in fact a role playing game. If this wasn't true people that play live action RPG's wouldn't really be playing a RPG. I never played but I am pretty sure they don't go around playing fighting and pretending to level up while they play. Your thinking is far to narrow minded. I said this before everything is not so black and white there are many shades of grey too.
This is off-topic, but I have been playing a game I bought a steam a few weeks ago called Magika. It's a small Solo / Co-op game similar to what we are describing. You start of with 8 elements, and you can combine them to create different attacks. Throughout the game you also find skillbooks that teach you special skill combinations.
Seeing a game like this on a more massive scale, with deeper lore and role-play tools would be amazing.
Perhaps my experiences with RPGs are different than most. RPGs were always about the adventure for me, never the numbers. Whenever I played tabletop with my friends, whoever was GM would create an epic quest, bring cool props (like scribble map with the edges burned off), a cool drawing, or maybe a song for the taven. Stuff that added to the depth of the game.
The game never really was about getting +1 damage or gaining levels. It was about role-playing, not roll-playing.
You know what. You just figured out everyones problem with my version being an RPG. The ones saying it's not are confusing the first word in RPG. The real first word is ROLE, but people are so programed by the corp style that they are thinking it is ROLL. You have solved everyones confusion, honestly. I'm not being a smart ass either. Thats the problem here, the corp mindset has replaced the meaning of ROLE with ROLL.
Another thing I just thought of is this game would most likely have a better community then most other games. The reason I think that is cuz people wouldn't be mean for someone using the wrong build. Sure there would still be the gankers that piss people off, but there would be one major thing gone from the game at least.
You are not describing a levelless game. You are simply replacing one set of 'levels' with another. A level is simply a term for a progression system. You can give everyone just one standard ability which never changes, so long as other parts of the game require some form of sliding scale (economy for example) then the games primary 'level focus' will simply move to credit differences.
Would I play an mmo without combat levels/skills? Sure.
Would I play a completely levelless mmo? No.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
By your definition an FPS is an RPG.
Most LARPs do have a lvl system and you do lvl up based on participation (I can think of 3 off the top of my head with Amtgaurd being the most noted).
However, a group like the SCA do not call themselves a LARP (even though they do roleplay), they consider themselves a historic re-inactment group and most would probably be offended if you 'reduced' them to a LARP .
Now, it is true that you can have an RPG without lvling, but these are very few and far between (I cant think of one) but the important thing to remember is its all about the character, never about the player. While I am not going to say your desire is not an RPG, you do have character focus development (just not around combat), you are very much on the boarder as your real focus isnt the character its the player combat skill (everything else is more window dressing).
NOTE: when I say lvling I am talking about a progression system where the character gets strong not necessarily a specific character level.
I had a similar argument with my friend regarding RTS games. When I told him League of Legends was the best RTS game I had played in a long time, he said, "League of Legends is not a RTS because you don't build a base to create an army."
My interpretation of the definition of RTS is strategizing in real-time. To me, League of Legends is no different from a game of basketball. Both games involve making decisions in real-time.
The issue is not that my interpretation of the definition is wrong, its just that the definition derived from past game experiences became prominent, resulting in the loss of the original intended meaning. The RTS term was created during a time when turn-based strategy games dominated the market, it was a way to define the game as to set it apart from the rest.
The problem is that the definition of RTS is so broad that there needs to be a sub genre created, such as city-building RTS or Tactical RTS.
The same can be said for RPGs. The definition is so broad in scope that there needs to be labels to create a more specific definition.
Yes everything you said is very true. Namely the highlighted areas.
Live action RPGs? Okay, you mean Live Action Roleplaying Games or LARP for short. That's a use of RPG the abbreviation. The RPG in "live action RPG" is clearly not a reference to the video game genre. In fact, "live action" and "video" are basically mutually exclusive.
...no. This argument—that all video games in which you play the role of a character in the world can be called roleplaying games or RPGs—is nothing new. It's been around for as long as Final Fantasy, and neither you nor he are brilliant for picking up on the role/roll homonym.
Take a hint from TheRegulator there. Basketball and League of Legends are both games in which come up with a strategy as you play in real time, but he accepts that there is a more prominent definition for "RTS" that is more specific than all real time games with strategy.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Ultima Online, one of my favorite all time MMOs. No levels, just skill raising based on what weapon, profession or stats you used the most. The armor and weapons were slight upgrades if anything.
It's been done and has proven to be succesful.
You do understand the part where I said that all gear gives a very minimal boost, and that ALL gear has the same stats. The only things diff about new gear is purely cosmetic.
My question about your post though is why wouldn't it work like that? Who says it wouldn't? It has never been done.
People also keep bringing up UO, but they forget the part where I said ALL character stats, and proficiencies stay the same the whole game. UO as I understand it has skill progression level ups.
I would like a levelless game but different gear like diff stats and awesome RvR.
Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.
The reason I say all gear has the same stats is, so people don't get into a gear grind at end game that just repeats itself with every new expansion.
I'm curious if the voting stayed the way it has, and say 1 million total people voted total. I wonder if a game company would make a game like that. After about 75% about of the million said they would play or at least try it. That would be 750,000 right there alone. Plus you add it being hyped,and maybe alot more. Just something cool to think about.
Doubt it. Developers with money wont risk deviating from the norm. I think they lack creativity as well.