dtgreene: Interestingly, I prefer the reverse approach; I prefer it when you constantly get small boosts to stats, so that the improvement is gradual, and that you get some growth every playing session (perhaps even every battle).
Also, removing levels entirely makes it less likely for the game to have issues such as overfavoring overspecialization and missable stats.
RyaReisender: Well, it's hard to justify grinding in a linear game when the impact is too small. Say I get stuck at a boss. Then I want to be able to grind and come back and be able to defeat him. When I know leveling hardly makes a difference and I'd need to grind hours to be able to defeat him, then I'd usually just quit instead.
Removing customization also removes that problem. :p
My favorite growth system is learning by doing anyway. Especially if there's no upper limit, so that you don't get punished by going jack of all trades.
Actually, I was actually thinking of something like "learning by doing". Stat gains are typically minor in such a system, but they happen very frequently. If you spend enough time "grinding", your stats would, indeed, increase significantly; it's just that the stat gains don't all come at once.
I could, again, bring up Disgaea; in the post game, it isn't unusual for characters (at least those without capped levels) to level up after almost every kill (assuming the enemy is strong enough), but the stat bonuses from leveling up aren't lhat significant. The difference between level 2688 and 2689, for example, is very small. (Then again, in Disgaea's postgame, leveling up isn't the only, or even the best, way to improve your stats.) Then again, Disgaea's postgame *does* have an issue where most fights are either trivial or impossible.
Starmaker: Are we talking videogame RPGs? Then stats are stupid, just give Basic and Advanced traits.
Stats in tabletop RPGs do one thing: they describe a broad class of tasks every character is supposed to be, individually, equally good at (okay it's an awkward sentence). Stats are needed because there's a countably infinite number of possible tasks in a tabletop game.
In a CRPG, the number of tasks is finite. And
it is a crime against game design if a character is "strong" (say, STR == 19) but not strong
enough and fails to e.g. move a crate (req. STR >= 20) because you decided to put two points in strength and one point in, idunno, ancient languages at a levelup a couple minutes ago, or because you failed a roll. There's a finite (
and tiny) number of predetermined tasks, and the only strength levels that effectively exist are those defined by the tasks, like so:
STR=15: able to put on heavy armor
STR=20: able to move this fucking crate
STR=40: able to grab the end boss dragon by the tail and swing it around
So there might as well be a trait chain: Heavy Armor [+1] -- That Fucking Crate [+2] -- Tehpwnzor McAwesome [+3].
(Also 3E is best D&D.)
Actually, the way it works out is typically more like this:
STR=15: Attacks do around 15 damage. An enemy with 100 HP will die in about 7 hits.
STR=20: Attacks do around 20 damage. An enemy with 100 HP will die in about 5 hits.
STR=40: Attacks do around 40 damage. An enemy with 100 HP will die in about 3 hits.
If you see it this way, then the stat is, indeed, relevant; it's not just a binary success or failure, and in-between stats have different behavior. (Interestingly enough, one reason for randomizing damage is to make it so that there is, for example, a difference between 34 and 49 STR in this example.)