702 réponses à ce sujet

[Orchomene]

A lot of PnP RPGs don't have levels. I don't understand why there would be such a constraint imposed on cRPG.
Vampire:Bloodlines has been mentioned already here as a good example of a strong RPG (as in, game with strong RPG elements) without any level. Even in DAO, we can think of a system without level :
Each time you complete successfully a "quest" (*) or just a major step in a "quest", you get between 1 and 5 Development points (DP). If you happen to do it in a very successful manner you can get cumulative bonus points (from 0 to 2 DP for each). Then, you can spend anytime your DP to increase a Talent (to obtain a talent level 1, it costs you 2 DP, for level 2, 4 DP, for level 3, 6 DP and 8 DP for level 4) or an attribute (1 DP per Att point for attributes between 0 and 20, 2 DP per attributes between 20 and 30, +1 DP more per 10 attributes point more in scale) or a skill (1 DP per skill point). Is this system less a RPG system than a leveling system ?

Edit : Actually, this system offers more freedom in the way you want to customize your character by letting you choose how to split your DP between attributes, talents and skills.

(*) : Quest here can be understood as a small story part, in DAO, it can be as big as getting the Sacred Ashes or as small as the shade encounter in the fake camp at Brecilian Forest East.

Modifié par Orchomene, 28 juillet 2010 - 08:39 .

[Tirigon]

yoda23 wrote...

Why not just remove XP all together? Hey I have an idea, remove XP and Character Creation, yeah that's it, remove all the RPG stuff from the RPG's so they will play more like action games, Man I really wish Bioware would start making great RPG's already just without all the RPG stuff included... ;P

Stop your f*cking sarcasm when you are making a serious suggestion.

It is true: The worst things about RPG is the so-called "RPG-Elements" like leveling, which, in fact, have nothing to do with roleplaying.

We should get rid of them.

[Tirigon]

Orchomene made a great post.



BioWare should employ him (her?) as level designer.

[JustinVx5]

im sorry but this is really dumb if u dint like rpgs dont play'em stick to CoD

[Tirigon]

JustinVx5 wrote...

im sorry but this is really dumb if u dint like rpgs dont play'em stick to CoD

I´m sorry but you are really dumb, or at least it seems like that if you misunderstand me completely....

First, I HATE CoD, it´s one of the (very) few games who manage to suck as much as WoW imo....

Secondly, I never said I hate RPGs. I just want them improved.
What I DO, however, hate is senseless levelgrinding and uber-equipment farming (Again, look at WoW or most other MMOs and you know what I hate..)

[Ripper Ironwill]

No more lvl-ups could be interesting, maybe if done like it is in the Gothic games. I know they kept the lvls there, but it was not needed. You simply have to find a master archer/1h/2h/thief and so on that could and would teach you a new skill and thats about it.



You pay for that skill, not with lvl-up points, but with money, or doing a quest or such.



Also Im tired of the "ubergodlikeendgame" player approach. If Im alone and attacked by 3-4foes, no matter how good I am, I should be dead, or very close to die. If Im attacked by more than 4 mobs, than fighting is not an option /RUN!!!



About the stat points..well, in this case the Oblivion approach could work in here imo. Holding a huge axe above your head like 10000000 times/day will eventually lead to an increase in strenght...or picking locks everyday will get you more dexterous and so on. This system wont be so easy to exploit (imho) becose you need to be in front of the pc, swinging your axe at a foe to get the strenght bonus, and not just leave your pc open and whatever.



Thus, for me, it will still be a rpg, and there wont be a need to get xp from kills either...no need for xp at all lol. Just role play and from quest to quest beat the game.

[Aradace]

Honestly, in any DnD game I used to run (god that was so long ago lol.) I never handed out xp per kill because to me it encouraged my PCs to fight over who's kill was who's and therefore led to them working less as a team and more as individuals...Hence, I basically threw out the xp tables that were in the DMs guide and implemented my own where I handed out xp at certain points. Sometimes it was at the end of battle, and sometimes it waited until my PCs were in town "relaxing" or whatever they would be doing in town at the time before I handed out the xp.



And I always calculated the xp in %'s and not flat numbers That way, the XP obtained by everyone was equal and fair....The only time it wasnt "fair" by definition I suppose is if there was a task I had "scripted" for the party's rogue that required them disarming a set of intricate traps etc.



Long story short, I agree that xp should not be on a kill by kill basis...But rather a battle by battle basis or something similar. This way, it DOES encourage the Rogue to play to his/her strengths by avoiding straitforward combat. Or encourages the Mage to use the most "effective" spell for the given situation and not the most "Zomgkillyouforthemostdamagepossible" all the time. And encourages the Warrior to focus more on keeping his team alive rather than "Killkillkillkillkillkillkilllllllll" all the time.



Albiet these "scenarios" arent a bad thing. Im all for some mindless and gratuitous (spelling?) violence when the situation calls for it...But if diplomacy or discretion can prevail instead of dulling your blades or draining your mana, why not go that way?

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

JustinVx5 wrote...

im sorry but this is really dumb if u dint like rpgs dont play'em stick to CoD

The problem here is that RPG's aren't necessarily defined by game mechanics.  Things like levelling, inventory management, hit points, gear dependency--these are all arbitrary.  If Gygax hadn't stuffed them into D&D, lo these many years ago, they might not be considered some sort of canon in the genre.

With regard to CRPG's the idea that combat game play should take the form of a board (or miniatures) game instead of an action game is also arbitrary. 

Any sort of argument can be made as to why one game or another falls short as an RPG, including DA itself.  Here's one, now: since the game is designed as the traditional, bog-standard D&D team adventure, the class I choose for my character is diminished almost to insignificance.  In any event, I will likely be playing a tank, a healer, and variations on DPS, no matter which role my character fills in the group.  Combat becomes a tabletop game, and my character isn't unique (or even necessary) until the next cutscene or dialogue option.

Personally, I find it more immersive and...roleplay-y to control one character, possibly with the ability to make some orders or suggestions to party members, if any are about.  There's something to be said for making team members completely autonomous, forcing the player to recognize the tactical situation and adapt to it.  This requires pretty good AI, though.  Anyone who's ever played Fallout knows what it's like to have a bad AI behind you with automatic weapons.

Anyway, I think the definition of an RPG is much looser than many seem to think.  It allows for a lot of different approaches in gameplay and character creation.

[Aradace]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

JustinVx5 wrote...

im sorry but this is really dumb if u dint like rpgs dont play'em stick to CoD

The problem here is that RPG's aren't necessarily defined by game mechanics.  Things like levelling, inventory management, hit points, gear dependency--these are all arbitrary.  If Gygax hadn't stuffed them into D&D, lo these many years ago, they might not be considered some sort of canon in the genre.

With regard to CRPG's the idea that combat game play should take the form of a board (or miniatures) game instead of an action game is also arbitrary. 

Any sort of argument can be made as to why one game or another falls short as an RPG, including DA itself.  Here's one, now: since the game is designed as the traditional, bog-standard D&D team adventure, the class I choose for my character is diminished almost to insignificance.  In any event, I will likely be playing a tank, a healer, and variations on DPS, no matter which role my character fills in the group.  Combat becomes a tabletop game, and my character isn't unique (or even necessary) until the next cutscene or dialogue option.

Personally, I find it more immersive and...roleplay-y to control one character, possibly with the ability to make some orders or suggestions to party members, if any are about.  There's something to be said for making team members completely autonomous, forcing the player to recognize the tactical situation and adapt to it.  This requires pretty good AI, though.  Anyone who's ever played Fallout knows what it's like to have a bad AI behind you with automatic weapons.

Anyway, I think the definition of an RPG is much looser than many seem to think.  It allows for a lot of different approaches in gameplay and character creation.

Or when you give said follower in Fallout 3 a Fatman and expect them to use it "properly".....That alone ruined me to every recruting any followers in that game

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Aradace wrote...

Honestly, in any DnD game I used to run (god that was so long ago lol.) I never handed out xp per kill because to me it encouraged my PCs to fight over who's kill was who's and therefore led to them working less as a team and more as individuals...Hence, I basically threw out the xp tables that were in the DMs guide and implemented my own where I handed out xp at certain points. Sometimes it was at the end of battle, and sometimes it waited until my PCs were in town "relaxing" or whatever they would be doing in town at the time before I handed out the xp.

When I first started with D&D, XP's were gained from treasure taken, as well.  (I haven't yet heard anyone here complain that Bioware's games are watered down because money found doesn't translate into character improvement--I can only conclude that this is because everyone around here is much younger than I am and didn't absord that peculiar and arbitrary standard to define RPG's.)  Eventually, I dispensed with XP altogether and awarded advancement according to the story I was trying to tell.  I no longer had to worry about how many orcs had been slaughtered--I just knew that the PC's would all be 4th level before they met the fearsome eldritch horror slumbering beneath the village of Clayhill.

The pacing of my games improved immensely, and no longer were we counting to 50,000 xp, one 7xp orc at a time.  So, by the standards advanced on the forums, I've been throwing the RPG elements out of actual tabletop RPG's for over 25 years. 

[AlanC9]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
Personally, I find it more immersive and...roleplay-y to control one character, possibly with the ability to make some orders or suggestions to party members, if any are about.  There's something to be said for making team members completely autonomous, forcing the player to recognize the tactical situation and adapt to it.  .

Something like NWN1?

[Aradace]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Honestly, in any DnD game I used to run (god that was so long ago lol.) I never handed out xp per kill because to me it encouraged my PCs to fight over who's kill was who's and therefore led to them working less as a team and more as individuals...Hence, I basically threw out the xp tables that were in the DMs guide and implemented my own where I handed out xp at certain points. Sometimes it was at the end of battle, and sometimes it waited until my PCs were in town "relaxing" or whatever they would be doing in town at the time before I handed out the xp.

When I first started with D&D, XP's were gained from treasure taken, as well.  (I haven't yet heard anyone here complain that Bioware's games are watered down because money found doesn't translate into character improvement--I can only conclude that this is because everyone around here is much younger than I am and didn't absord that peculiar and arbitrary standard to define RPG's.)  Eventually, I dispensed with XP altogether and awarded advancement according to the story I was trying to tell.  I no longer had to worry about how many orcs had been slaughtered--I just knew that the PC's would all be 4th level before they met the fearsome eldritch horror slumbering beneath the village of Clayhill.

The pacing of my games improved immensely, and no longer were we counting to 50,000 xp, one 7xp orc at a time.  So, by the standards advanced on the forums, I've been throwing the RPG elements out of actual tabletop RPG's for over 25 years. 

Basically how I did it really....I determined how much xp the party would get based off of how well they all worked together during the conflict/scenario given because I too thought that getting to level 20 (and beyond) was a bit "rediculous" one kill at a time. 

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
Personally, I find it more immersive and...roleplay-y to control one character, possibly with the ability to make some orders or suggestions to party members, if any are about.  There's something to be said for making team members completely autonomous, forcing the player to recognize the tactical situation and adapt to it.  .

Something like NWN1?

Step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned. 

[Orchomene]

Tirigon wrote...

Orchomene made a great post.

BioWare should employ him (her?) as level designer.

Well, I have a long experience of PnP RPGs and with friends, we have defined our proper rules or modified existing rules to give a better experience of the game.
The system I proposed is not very original, it's the one of World of Darkness. But it's just to illustrate that there are lots of systems that may be implemented in cRPG that don't revolve around levels or xp per kill.
The system mentioned above with masters teaching you skills/talents/attributes is another one. I would rather avoid basing this on money but more on quests or objects specific, but there is some idea behind it.
Rules in a RPG are abstractions. It can be reflected in xp/levels/attributes or another way. What is important to remind is to give the player some freedom of choice for the evolution of the chracter and a sufficiant discretisation of the system so that he can feel the progress of his/her character.
There is a fun system in a not too recent RPG (a french one) called In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas. In this game, the player incarnates an angel or a demon (depending on the campaign, all players are either angels or demons). The players are given missions by their bosses and gain a power at the end of the mission. If the mission was a failure, they would gain nothing, if the mission was a complete failure, they would gain a limitation (a weakness, like becoming claustrophobic, having horns, having a vow of poverty, .., if the mission was a partial success, they would gain a power but with rolling dice and could get anything (even a weakness), if the mission was a normal success, they could choose to improve a power they had already or roll a dice but choosing the category of the power (offensive, defensive, utilitary, objects, ...), if the mission was a total success, they could choose any power they wanted. There was a progression, but with more or less freedom depending of the quality of the success.

[Haexpane]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

JustinVx5 wrote...

im sorry but this is really dumb if u dint like rpgs dont play'em stick to CoD

The problem here is that RPG's aren't necessarily defined by game mechanics.  Things like levelling, inventory management, hit points, gear dependency--these are all arbitrary.

  If Gygax hadn't stuffed them into D&D, lo these many years ago, they might not be considered some sort of canon in the genre.
 .

And we never would have had baldur's Gate 2 and Dragaon Age would not exist.

That's really the point, half the the posters in this thread want to redefine what the basis for DA is and turn it into "my fav PnP RPG"

DA is the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2.   Levels, classes, XP, rules, requirements, inventory, quest logs, maps its all from there.

"lets remove XP per kill" is akin to saying "lets remove Baldur's Gate 2 inspiration". If that is your opinion, fine.

But considering Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the finest games ever made, and a top 10 RPG of all time, I'd rather try to stick as close to that as possible.

[Haexpane]

Orchomene wrote...
 
Edit : Actually, this system offers more freedom in the way you want to customize your character by letting you choose how to split your DP between attributes, talents and skills.
 .

Yes, it's more flexible, but that means it's harder to balance, and easily exploitable. 
Oblivion comes to mind in terms of a "free character" development system.

one of the things about BG2 that made it so great were the D&D rules so well translated to a videogame.  Old School Bioware Devs will sometimes comment that they are more happy being free under their own system and not constrained by a rule set.

But now that we have DAO to compare, the rules in BG2 were more balanced, and more interesting.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Haexpane wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

JustinVx5 wrote...

im sorry but this is really dumb if u dint like rpgs dont play'em stick to CoD

The problem here is that RPG's aren't necessarily defined by game mechanics.  Things like levelling, inventory management, hit points, gear dependency--these are all arbitrary.

  If Gygax hadn't stuffed them into D&D, lo these many years ago, they might not be considered some sort of canon in the genre.
 .

And we never would have had baldur's Gate 2 and Dragaon Age would not exist.

Well, yes and no.  Computer games still would have followed the success of the tabletop RPG.  Certainly, Baldur's Gate would have looked different if it were based on a different ruleset or a different concept of the RPG itself.  I can't accept the premise that any variation from the historical development of the RPG would have resulted in something inferior.

That's really the point, half the the posters in this thread want to redefine what the basis for DA is and turn it into "my fav PnP RPG"

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose.  From where I'm sitting, though, everyone is just hoping that the new release reflect's his own gaming preferences as closely as possible.  I like the RPG design has been trending away from some of its wonkier traditions.  Modern D&D has moved on quite a long way since the system clumsily adapted into Baldur's Gate, for that matter.  The only real conflict arises when some gamers decide that their preferences represent some sort of objective standard for "true" RPG's.

DA is the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2.   Levels, classes, XP, rules, requirements, inventory, quest logs, maps its all from there.

"lets remove XP per kill" is akin to saying "lets remove Baldur's Gate 2 inspiration". If that is your opinion, fine.

So, any change to any part of the system represents a thorough rejection of the inspiration of previous efforts?  That seems a peculiar perspective.  Ordinarily, "Inspired by Baldur's Gate" wouldn't suggest a slavish adherence to every design detail, would it?  I would expect it to denote an attempt to capture theme and atmosphere, more than anything else.  There are, in fact, large differences between Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age, including an entirely different ruleset.  None of those differences represent rejection of Baldur's Gate, but a comparatively minor change in the way levelling is calculated would?  Especially when designers count out every available experience point so that the levelling is paced just as they want it? 

But considering Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the finest games ever made, and a top 10 RPG of all time, I'd rather try to stick as close to that as possible.

The Sopwith Camel was a hell of an airplane in 1917, but I'd be reluctant to take it up against a MiG.

Baldur's Gate was quite an achievement twelve years ago.  Should Bioware have stuck with the 2nd Edition AD&D rules?  Why bother updating graphics?  And what's up with dropping a spell slot system for a cooldown system?  What was wrong with the good ol' 20-sided die?  All those weird numbers in Dragon Age--it's almost as though they did their calculations in terms of--gasps--DPS!

Personally, I like the differences between Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age as much as I enjoy the similarities.  I look forward to an improved design in DA2, as well.

[Haexpane]

[quote]Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

 

Well, yes and no.  Computer games still would have followed the success of the tabletop RPG.  Certainly, Baldur's Gate would have looked different if it were based on a different ruleset or a different concept of the RPG itself. 

I can't accept the premise that any variation from the historical development of the RPG would have resulted in something inferior.
[/quote]
No one said "ANy variation"  just that, we would not have had BG2 as we know and love it.  BG2 stands alone, lightning in a bottle if you were. 

Icewind, and other games inspired by it or using the engine like NWN2, KOTOR the list goes on and on would all be completely different.

My premise is not that any variation would result in something inferior.  My premise is that MOST variations would have resulted in something vastly different.  And statistically speaking, a good chance of it being inferiour and forgotten

[quote]
That's really the point, half the the posters in this thread want to redefine what the basis for DA is and turn it into "my fav PnP RPG"


That's one way of looking at it, I suppose.  From where I'm sitting, though, everyone is just hoping that the new release reflect's his own gaming preferences as closely as possible.  I like the RPG design has been trending away from some of its wonkier traditions.  Modern D&D has moved on quite a long way since the system clumsily adapted into Baldur's Gate, for that matter.  The only real conflict arises when some gamers decide that their preferences represent some sort of objective standard for "true" RPG's.

[quote]
 

So, any change to any part of the system represents a thorough rejection of the inspiration of previous efforts? 
[/quote]

Nope, removing *core* mechanics would tho
[quote]  Ordinarily, "Inspired by Baldur's Gate" wouldn't suggest a slavish adherence to every design detail, would it? 
[/quote]

I misquoted, I should have quoted "Spiritual Successor"

[quote]

I would expect it to denote an attempt to capture theme and atmosphere, more than anything else. 
[/quote]
Nope, BG2 is a licensed product, so theme and atmosphere were 100% off limits.  The idea was to capture the type of game, and general "swords and magic and dragons" party based western RPG


[quote]
There are, in fact, large differences between Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age, including an entirely different ruleset.  [/quote]
Indeed, another licensing issue, although Bioware has stated repeatedly that they prefer the make your own rules w/ DA approach.

I would counter that BG2 has much better and more balanced gameplay, so "make your own rules" is more FUN for developers, trying to stick to the AD&D ruleset at the time made for a better game



[quote]

None of those differences represent rejection of Baldur's Gate, but a comparatively minor change in the way levelling is calculated would?  Especially when designers count out every available experience point so that the levelling is paced just as they want it? 
[/quote]
I am not disagreeing that lack of combat XP would not work functionally.  I am stating that lack of combat XP would removing a lot of the fun from combat.

The Force Unleashed could be an example of what that is like.  Combat becomes an abo****e chore because there is really no reward.  They also have a system where you heal from slain enemies.  which means you have to kill more to refill the health you lost fighting the last enemy.

But your don't progress with XP for doing so.  Well they sort of have a god of war type XP system (it's terrible)  but you get where I am going.

I don't want to turn DA2 into God of War

[quote]
 


The Sopwith Camel was a hell of an airplane in 1917, but I'd be reluctant to take it up against a MiG.


Baldur's Gate was quite an achievement twelve years ago.  Should Bioware have stuck with the 2nd Edition AD&D rules?  Why bother updating graphics?  And what's up with dropping a spell slot system for a cooldown system?  What was wrong with the good ol' 20-sided die?  All those weird numbers in Dragon Age--it's almost as though they did their calculations in terms of--gasps--DPS!
[/quote]

This isn't war, it's art.  I'm not against the WoW model of combat.  The point is even KOTOR had better combat than DAO.

Dice Rolling isn't some "ancient technology" like stone tools.  It's a rule set that's constantly evolved and time tested, it's one of the few systems that has been PROVEN to be functional, fun and universal for BOTH table top and videogaming.

Everquest DPS model has not.  


[quote]
Personally, I like the differences between Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age as much as I enjoy the similarities.  I look forward to an improved design in DA2, as well.[/quote]

Everyone knew that's where you'd end up.   I'm not saying DA is bad.

But if you don't think BG2 is better, that's ok.  But it won't change BG2's place in history as one of the all time great games, that is still playable today even with it's 1917 graphics

[Tirigon]

Haexpane wrote...


"lets remove XP per kill" is akin to saying "lets remove Baldur's Gate 2 inspiration". If that is your opinion, fine.

But considering Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the finest games ever made, and a top 10 RPG of all time, I'd rather try to stick as close to that as possible.

I haven´t played Baldur´s Gate so I can not know if it´s really as great as you say, but tell me: Do you really want no progress at all?

[Tirigon]

Haexpane wrote...

Dice Rolling isn't some "ancient technology" like stone tools.  It's a rule set that's constantly evolved and time tested, it's one of the few systems that has been PROVEN to be functional, fun and universal for BOTH table top and videogaming.

Everquest DPS model has not.  

Well, this is again a personal opinion. I would dare to disagree: In fact, the necessity of dice rolling (that means, luck instead of skill) is the reason why I prefer PC games over tabletop - not only in RPGs but also in RTS games and everything else that exists both as PC game and tabletop / cardgame / whatever else.

Imo, luck shouldn´t play a role in a game but only skill.

[the_one_54321]

Do you honestly believe there is no randomness in the results of your own actions?



Numerical statistical systems are excellent at representing personal ability. Remember that the whole point is that the character on the screen is not you, and is not represented by your skill. The "dice rolling" provides the natural element of randomness, while the rest of the system represents the "skill" of the character. Odds of success increase as the character gains experience. That's just like real life.



It's not you. It's the character on the screen. So your physical skill should have nothing to do with it. That's role playing.

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...

Haexpane wrote...


"lets remove XP per kill" is akin to saying "lets remove Baldur's Gate 2 inspiration". If that is your opinion, fine.

But considering Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the finest games ever made, and a top 10 RPG of all time, I'd rather try to stick as close to that as possible.

I haven´t played Baldur´s Gate so I can not know if it´s really as great as you say, but tell me: Do you really want no progress at all?

No, and I never said that.   Changing systems is not automatic "progress", especially changing to a system that is just differenet, but isn't any more balanced, fast, effective, flexible, challenging, interesting, deep etc...

If you haven't played BG2 that's ok.  But understand the reason people consider it the finest CRPG ever made isn't because of nostalgia or AD&D fandom.

It's because of the gameplay,characters,art etc...

And many would argue that because we switched from 2D to 3D and making 3D games is more expensive, we have not really progressed, but actually regressed as games have LESS features, LESS content and cost more to the consumer.

I don't want to get into a BG2 is better than DA debate since we already have that thread.

We know DA can never be a 3D BG2.  

However this idea that systems have to be completely changed in order to be "more fun" has historically proven to be nothing more than a gamble.

I could list RPGs that "Changed for progress" and ended up having a system that is worse, but it would contain too many games and be way off DA2 topic.

I am open to change in DA2, the point is the change Bioware has illustrated thusfar IMO have been stripping features down and changing the graphics to be more Goth.

2 things I really dont want.

[DragonRageGT]

Hey, remove level up too, why not! It's not realistic after all. blergh



The only reason I kept playing BG and BG2 for many years is because there was a Level Cap Remover!

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Everquest 1 handled expanded levels quite well after a few launch issues.  New continents, new creatures, new enemies.

Instead of "Bandits in full Deadric"  you get "Ice Bandits" with "ice armor/weapons"   A new type of bandit, something different.

That's how you handle new high levels, new challenges

Lol.

Just how exactly is it better to have new enemies if they are, essentially, the same as before with a new name?

Reminds me of Borderland´s "Badass" and "Badmutha" creatures. They sucked.

Totally different/  They were not essentially the same w/ new names.  They had different abilities, AC, resists, spells etc...  

It's nothing at all like Borderland's system.

[Haexpane]

Vandrayke wrote...

the idea that I'd play a game all day long and only gain one level is hilarious

10 hours seems like a stretch, but when you play BG2  4 hours feels like 45 minutes