Do RPGs require character progression?

[rusty_shackleford]

In the original Traveller tabletop RPG(1977), your character did not advance after creation. If we tried to make an RPG for Star Trek that followed the story where your party is Kirk / Spock / McCoy, your characters would likewise see very little growth.
Do you think they are/would be RPGs? Are they 'less' of an RPG?


Coincidentally, both of these settings are science fiction. Does sci-fi just lend itself poorly to being an RPG compared to fantasy(science fantasy or otherwise)?

[Oyster Sauce]

If we tried to make an RPG for Star Trek that followed the story where your party is Kirk / Spock / McCoy, your characters would likewise see very little growth.

They could mechanically grow as much as you want them to. Attributes are pretty abstract outside of like two games occasionally giving you alternate dialogue at 1 int vs 2-99 int. AFAIK travellers progress by upgrading their gear and ships which can functionally be similar enough.

[rusty_shackleford]

If we tried to make an RPG for Star Trek that followed the story where your party is Kirk / Spock / McCoy, your characters would likewise see very little growth.

They could mechanically grow as much as you want them to. Attributes are pretty abstract outside of like two games occasionally giving you alternate dialogue at 1 int vs 2-99 int. AFAIK travellers progress by upgrading their gear and ships which can functionally be similar enough.

But it wouldn't really be true to the show, all three are effectively already at their peak

[Oyster Sauce]

If we tried to make an RPG for Star Trek that followed the story where your party is Kirk / Spock / McCoy, your characters would likewise see very little growth.

They could mechanically grow as much as you want them to. Attributes are pretty abstract outside of like two games occasionally giving you alternate dialogue at 1 int vs 2-99 int. AFAIK travellers progress by upgrading their gear and ships which can functionally be similar enough.

But it wouldn't really be true to the show, all three are effectively already at their peak

McCoy lives for another 100 years, he's still a growing boy.

[rusty_shackleford]

Perhaps Traveller is just an example of a game that when converted to video game is no longer an RPG

How are the Megatraveller games anyways? @Tweed where are my reviews?

[WhiteShark]

Coincidentally, both of these settings are science fiction. Does sci-fi just lend itself poorly to being an RPG compared to fantasy(science fantasy or otherwise)?

Modern and sci-fi conceptually lean toward the power of equipment over innate ability. Likewise, it's harder for them to depict superhuman characters because of all the cascading effects that would have on such settings, whereas demigods and similar fit very comfortably in fantasy. So, if we accept the premise that advancement of character skill is a necessary part of RPGs, I think it's true that sci-fi has a harder time being an RPG setting while remaining coherent and sci-fi.

Now, is character advancement required to be an RPG? Strictly speaking, I would say no. D&D doesn't stop being an RPG when running a one-shot in which no one levels up. Even absent character progression, the session-to-session play remains the same. However, for the same reason that devs love to shove progression mechanics in every genre of video game, I think many players would be less enthused about TTRPGs without it. Some people do play that way, though. I know some GURPS players who only modify their character sheets when they agree it makes sense based on the events of the campaign without otherwise doling out character points.

[Tangerine]

I don't think it'd be less of an RPG, but playing Kirk/McCoy/Spock in the Star Trek universe is playing a high level party. There's a significant difference between them and a cadet, which is where they all started, so the growth is implicit in their pasts. You're solving the problem of the day with everything they've already learned.

More generally, there's no reason why my character can't spend time teaching his companion basic marksmanship or how to drive. As for why sci-fi games seem more prone to adopting OG Traveller style lack of advancement, sci-fi is more relatable to contemporary skillsets, and there's the perception that you stop progressing in skill as quickly after you enter the workforce.

[J1M]

Tickling your brain with progression rewards is the only gameplay a good portion of RPGs actually have. Progress Quest and Cookie Clicker prove that's all people need sometimes.

In your example the Trek crew could get situational and upgraded equipment as a form of progression.

The closest thing to what you are describing that most people have experienced is the end of an RPG when your character is max level or otherwise fully developed. It's a bit different because one has the context of what their character was like before the progression and will feel good about the contrast.

A form of progression we don't usually talk about is competency progression. So in your example, Kirk starts as a master of brawling, but the player doesn't understand the timing or combos or how to use the environment at the start of the game and over hours of play they experience progression. This could only be experienced once because on replay the player already has the competency in place. Fighting games are an example of this type of progression.

Let's say Spock needs to solve some space-sudoku puzzles and players will fumble around as they start to figure them out but then experience a different form of competency progression that isn't based on reflexes or timing as they become familiar with them and their brain attunes to patterns. The Witness is a great example of this type of progression.

I think most people would slot an "RPG" with no progression into another genre, such as adventure or action based on its conflict resolution mechanisms.

[rusty_shackleford]

If we tried to make an RPG for Star Trek that followed the story where your party is Kirk / Spock / McCoy, your characters would likewise see very little growth.

They could mechanically grow as much as you want them to. Attributes are pretty abstract outside of like two games occasionally giving you alternate dialogue at 1 int vs 2-99 int. AFAIK travellers progress by upgrading their gear and ships which can functionally be similar enough.

I guess this is the correct answer, the closest thing to an actual Star Trek viddygaem is Star Trek Online. Most of the mechanics don't fit into the narrative 1:1, and maybe they don't have to.

---

Are there any RPGs where you just play as Frodo?

[logincrash]

I don't like equipment-based character progression. I want my character to be better than all the other pleb NPCs in a situation where, for example, he's captured and has to escape in nothing but his smallclothes.
If you're a demi-god on the battlefield but only because of your +10 to All Attributes amulet and +25 Armor and +5 to HP regeneration breastplate, that kinda makes your character a disposable nobody.

[maidenhaver]

In the original Traveller tabletop RPG(1977), your character did not advance after creation. If we tried to make an RPG for Star Trek that followed the story where your party is Kirk / Spock / McCoy, your characters would likewise see very little growth.
Do you think they are/would be RPGs? Are they 'less' of an RPG?


Coincidentally, both of these settings are science fiction. Does sci-fi just lend itself poorly to being an RPG compared to fantasy(science fantasy or otherwise)?

I like the idea of building characters who don't progress statwise. Their gear may degrade or get stolen/confiscated, or they may procure better gear, but the idea fits best for veterans, defined characters, or in a tight module, because gamers expect numbers go up. A year or two of adventuring should fatigue a party quite a lot, even strain them to breaking like LotR. Over decades? They might become fast friends or bitter enemies. Their peoples could go to war, or in a generational arkship, the crew would need to grow in their billets and cycle through leave, maybe not get too close that cliques form. Deterioration should be the rule, not growth. At least for adults. Starting as children, however the story handles that, and spanning several generations or at least into adulthood, could depict a lot of gains early game.

[rusty_shackleford]

In the original Traveller tabletop RPG(1977), your character did not advance after creation. If we tried to make an RPG for Star Trek that followed the story where your party is Kirk / Spock / McCoy, your characters would likewise see very little growth.
Do you think they are/would be RPGs? Are they 'less' of an RPG?


Coincidentally, both of these settings are science fiction. Does sci-fi just lend itself poorly to being an RPG compared to fantasy(science fantasy or otherwise)?

I like the idea of building characters who don't progress statwise. Their gear may degrade or get stolen/confiscated, or they may procure better gear, but the idea fits best for veterans, defined characters, or in a tight module, because gamers expect numbers go up. A year or two of adventuring should fatigue a party quite a lot, even strain them to breaking like LotR. Over decades? They might become fast friends or bitter enemies. Their peoples could go to war, or in a generational arkship, the crew would need to grow in their billets and cycle through leave, maybe not get too close that cliques form. Deterioration should be the rule, not growth. At least for adults. Starting as children, however the story handles that, and spanning several generations or at least into adulthood, could depict a lot of gains early game.

Most of the key players in LotR have decades(or in the case of elves, much longer) of experience and growth, if any beyond wisdom, is slow.
Perhaps RPGs just shouldn't have you play as people at the top of their career is the takeaway here.

[TKVNC]

Skills, not attributes, and items making you stronger.

It's why Kenshi is quite a good system. There's no actual levels, you are perfectly able to get the best gear immediately if you know how. This is also generally true for M&B, you can get the best armour immediately, if you know how, and very much can beat the best troops with the right knowledge; Warband however does have attribute levelling, and levels generally.

The most offensive part in a lot of RPG's is scaling mobs, or zones that progressively become higher level. Simply assign zones, and make progress non-linear, otherwise it's more of an action adventure in my mind.

[maidenhaver]

In the original Traveller tabletop RPG(1977), your character did not advance after creation. If we tried to make an RPG for Star Trek that followed the story where your party is Kirk / Spock / McCoy, your characters would likewise see very little growth.
Do you think they are/would be RPGs? Are they 'less' of an RPG?


Coincidentally, both of these settings are science fiction. Does sci-fi just lend itself poorly to being an RPG compared to fantasy(science fantasy or otherwise)?

I like the idea of building characters who don't progress statwise. Their gear may degrade or get stolen/confiscated, or they may procure better gear, but the idea fits best for veterans, defined characters, or in a tight module, because gamers expect numbers go up. A year or two of adventuring should fatigue a party quite a lot, even strain them to breaking like LotR. Over decades? They might become fast friends or bitter enemies. Their peoples could go to war, or in a generational arkship, the crew would need to grow in their billets and cycle through leave, maybe not get too close that cliques form. Deterioration should be the rule, not growth. At least for adults. Starting as children, however the story handles that, and spanning several generations or at least into adulthood, could depict a lot of gains early game.

Most of the key players in LotR have decades(or in the case of elves, much longer) of experience and growth, if any beyond wisdom, is slow.
Perhaps RPGs just shouldn't have you play as people at the top of their career is the takeaway here.

Peak human adventuring days should be mid to late 20s. After maturing, before the body begins dying. Stats should be locked in and skills still easy enough to grow. Taking those characters any further should require potions or augments.

[rusty_shackleford]

What are some examples of stories that the genre is based on where the protagonists actually grow in power over the duration of the adventure?
I suspect rpg growth does not actually have much of a basis in the literature but is there because it's fun...

Maybe it does not need to make sense entirely.

[rusty_shackleford]

What are some examples of stories that the genre is based on where the protagonists actually grow in power over the duration of the adventure?
I suspect rpg growth does not actually have much of a basis in the literature but is there because it's fun...

Maybe it does not need to make sense entirely.

Just remembered LitRPG is a thing, which is RPG mechanics being taken back to literature in a perhaps far too literal way but I think exposes that such growth very rarely happens in stories.
Maybe there is a happy medium. I wrote on it prior but Rogue Trader growth felt silly, I already was a high ranking admiral before the game started me at level 1 with very few abilities or skills...

[rusty_shackleford]

Character progression is fun

[maidenhaver]

Character progression is fun

Could managing entropy be fun? At least I think parties should want to fall apart.

[maidenhaver]

Take TES, stat degredation only kicks in after jail time, but the real mechanic should be your stats want to degrade to whatever racial and sex baseline you began at. You forget skills that weren't raised adequately. All that levitating makes you fat and fatigued (or maybe not, maybe magic can use stamina in a good setting). Maybe magic ages mages.

[Demonic Fate]

You might not need to become better over the course of the game, but you definitely need to change simply for the sake of not boring the player to death.

I've heard it theorized multiple times that you could make a reverse RPG, where you start with an arsenal of powerful abilities that wipe the floor with your enemies, then gradually lose most of them over the course of the game and have to compensate with skill and planning. I don't know of anyone who tried to actually build such a game, though.

[Oyster Sauce]

What are some examples of stories that the genre is based on where the protagonists actually grow in power over the duration of the adventure?
I suspect rpg growth does not actually have much of a basis in the literature but is there because it's fun...

Maybe it does not need to make sense entirely.

KOTOR II lets you give Jedi Juice to everybody.

Growing freakishly strong is explicitly a part of the story in Wrath of the Righteous for both you and your companions.

All attributes are represented physically in Fable.

Vampyr kind of sucks but was built around the idea of choosing whether to grow in power by sacrificing mortals or stay weak but maintain your humanity.

[Kalarion]

What are some examples of stories that the genre is based on where the protagonists actually grow in power over the duration of the adventure?
I suspect rpg growth does not actually have much of a basis in the literature but is there because it's fun...

Maybe it does not need to make sense entirely.

Arthurian legend, most comic books (superheroes tend to gain phenomenal cosmic power and then lose it), George Macdonald, most fantasy authors starting from about the 60s onward. I see what you mean though. Many of the examples that immediately popped into my head are recent, and it's entirely reasonable to suppose that they were a result of the genre incorporating popular RPG mechanics into their novel ideas. Ur-fantasy innate character growth really does seem pretty rare.

I like the idea of managed decline. I'm positive I've either heard of or played a game where you start at the peak of your abilities, and then a progressive curse slowly strips them away from you. I can't remember the name for the life of me though. It's interesting that developers only ever think in that way in the sense of providing a background for having to slowly work your way back up, ala Darksiders.

[J1M]

I would turn to Elric or Conan instead of a modern writer if you are wanting to look at this from a source novel perspective. Anything new is basically a copy of a copy (quite literally with LLM input).

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't think anything in appendix N has RPG power growth fantasy. It's pretty much a creation of the genre that rarely ever fits its own narrative or timespan.

[TKVNC]

I like the idea of building characters who don't progress statwise. Their gear may degrade or get stolen/confiscated, or they may procure better gear, but the idea fits best for veterans, defined characters, or in a tight module, because gamers expect numbers go up. A year or two of adventuring should fatigue a party quite a lot, even strain them to breaking like LotR. Over decades? They might become fast friends or bitter enemies. Their peoples could go to war, or in a generational arkship, the crew would need to grow in their billets and cycle through leave, maybe not get too close that cliques form. Deterioration should be the rule, not growth. At least for adults. Starting as children, however the story handles that, and spanning several generations or at least into adulthood, could depict a lot of gains early game.

Most of the key players in LotR have decades(or in the case of elves, much longer) of experience and growth, if any beyond wisdom, is slow.
Perhaps RPGs just shouldn't have you play as people at the top of their career is the takeaway here.

Peak human adventuring days should be mid to late 20s. After maturing, before the body begins dying. Stats should be locked in and skills still easy enough to grow. Taking those characters any further should require potions or augments.

I personally feel your peak would be late 20's through to mid to late 30's. Even if that's not strictly your physical peak. So 28 to 37, more or less.

[Kalarion]

I don't think anything in appendix N has RPG power growth fantasy. It's pretty much a creation of the genre that rarely ever fits its own narrative or timespan.

From the wikipedo, Roger Zelazny's Amber specifically has Corwin grow in power throughout the first 5 novels. It was the primary case I had in mind when I said, "the 60s onwards".

Several other of the authors wrote examples of innate character growth. I find it interesting that the books they wrote like that aren't listed in the Appendix. Fred Saberhagen (Book of Swords), Jack Vance (Demon Princes) and Michael Moorcock (Elric, Stormbringer) spring immediately to mind.

As long as we're looking at the period prior to RPG as play really taking off (I assume this happened in the late 70s), even more examples come to mind that I would be very surprised if they didn't heavily influence D&D. Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain, Patricia McKillip's Riddle-Master of Hed (I'm cheating a bit here), and so forth.

Before the 60s I agree that I can't think of a lot of examples, but once that decade hits there are plenty.

[Breathe]

Although not an RPG, Valhiem's progression is great. You unlock stronger gear and food the more you progress and find. I wonder if that structure could work in a sci-fi universe. The more you find, capture, build, research etc. the more you progress in tech for your ship, or new better ships, bigger fleet, better health items.

So while the character doesn't necessarily progress themselves, everything they use and interact with does.

[Ranselknulf]

Progression can take many forms.

Skill grinding is just one form of progressing in RPGs. I think the reason stats / skill grinding in rpgs has become an afterthought in [current year] is online games have ruined players expectations of how fast skills should progress. Modern gamers believe skills should always be capped, and they should be capped by the time you make it to the next level. I'm not talking about one or two skills, but every skill should be easily cappable by the time you reach the next level. In the past, skills were important, but skilled gameplay mattered more (to an extent) and allowed players to beat content with less grinding of skills. In [Current Year] skill grinding has all but been removed from games, and the few games that do have skill grinding make it bypassable with microtransactions or 10 minutes of effort to cap literally everything even if you ignored skills for 30+ levels.

In older games, the skills just came naturally as a function of playing the game well. Reducing the focus on skill grinding in modern games isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I think it simplifies game design away from stat builds and more to gameplay elements. With that said, then the focus turns to other types or progression. Whether it be gear acquisition, space ships, faction or guild access or reputation, unique or rare items, or owning exclusive sections of the game world (mining locations or strategic strongholds).

I still enjoy stats and skill progression and making it a part of the game world, but I think it could be removed completely from most games without negative side effects if the games were slightly more focused on the other types of game progression and making it more functional to the storyline or game world's lore.