Klaus- I think it is extremely important.  I am more into gamification than video game design, but gamification is based on game mechanics.  http://www.yukaichou.com/ is a gamification website I am currently researching.  He has some good points, for example Core Drive 2: Development & Accomplishment: per your question, in role playing a person character must continually develop and evolve in order for a person the feel accomplishment.  Yukai chou talks about a tiered system for badges and rewards.  Development of a role playing character is essentially a reward mechanism to keep gamers engaged, they feel as if they are accomplishing something, leveling up etc.  Recieveing new swords or something is also associated with mystery, curiosity, and makes game more exciting.  Anyway hopes this helps 

Actually, I'd say this depends on the type of RPG as well.  Is it open world?  Is the skillset capped?  What kind of main medium of representation is used (sound, text, visuals)?  Even the setting might matter. 

There are e.g. RP MUDs with an open ended skill accumulation scheme such as Discworld (discworld.atuin.net) where the lack of a cap level leads to difficulties of keeping the game interested for high, mid and low level players alike.  

On the other hand skill development can be outside of quantitative measures as well, especially where it transfers in player development, e.g. when learning to deal with types of puzzles better or developing strategies for combat.  

There is furthermore the social aspect of playing RPGs which also has its own rules of development.  Different aspects are of different importance to different types of players (see for a very rough analysis Bartle http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm)  

So while I would say yes to the general question, I would also need to know what a skill in an RPG is and of what kind of a skillset we are talking about.  

And then there is the question of what a role in that context is, when we talk just about a general development of skills.  What degree of freedom within character actions is needed to be able to play a role?  How strong does the narrative setting have to be? 

All in all, the question itself is very interesting to me, because it opens up so many others. 

Development of skills fits particularly well in an RPG I think since it often has a narrative that the player 'grows' along with, and the player can identify with the main character. Seeing the character develop new or better skills is positive feedback on the increasing skills of the player itself.

Indeed, particularly genres are inherently ambiguous, especially RPG's which facilitate so many player styles. I believe it makes sense to use models from psychology where theories from game design lack. Speaking very much in general, I would say that development of skills is essential. It may partly depend on the player itself but, for most players, progression is extremely stimulating. See for example self-determination theory; skills in particular give the player a sense of competence which is a key factor in motivation. Skills that evolve and adapt to the choices and style of the player stimulate even more, increasing the feeling of autonomy of the player.

In any case, variation helps to keep a game interesting!

Thanks Joel, Katharina and Frederiek, your comments and extensions beyond the limits of my question help a lot to see the point of interest in another light.

I should tell you the true background of my question which has some components.

Together with Tim Hume from Universal Learning Games, I will have an accepted paper at the forthcoming Intl. Conf. on Consumer Electronics, ICCE 2015, which is IEEE's flagship conference in the field.  The title of the paper is:

Effective Learning Through Meaning Construction in Digital Role Playing Games

We base our investigations on the philosophical/psychological background of Symbolic Interactionisms.

From this starting point, we progress toward the careful distinction of the real and the virtual in virtual worlds (see my paper with Denise Lengyel, Die Realiät in Virtuellen Welten, zeitschrift für e-learning 1/2012, 7-22).

The synthesis is an approach which - very, very roughly - says: For skills you want to develop in a game-based way, introduce skill variables into the characteristics of a player's character in the virtual world such that those skills make sense to the player (here invoke symbolic interactionism). Players who engage in the game develop their virtual characters and, thus, acquire some skills or knowledge.

The result, as you can see, is some class of RPGs for Game-Based Learning. To have an understandable abbreviation, I like to call it Role-Playing GBL (RPGBL).

Our paper describes a first implementation of an elementary approach which, nevertheless, is a fully implemented and working RPGBL.

I think it definitely IS a science. If you haven't read Michael Mateas, I highly recommend his work. He is chair of Computational Media at UCSC and has spent most of his career working on this question and developing systems for creating afforcances for both NPCs and Player Characters to evolve. For me, it is a matter of presence and engagement. To have the sense of being in the game world, one must be able to make choices that have significance. Ideally a PC learns from choices and consequences and can improve her in-game wisdom and skills. Externally speaking, PC experiences may make us different - hopefully better - people. See for example NEVER ALONE by Upper One Games. 

Hello Brenda,

thanks a lot for your response. I appreciate it very much.

Because the issue is quite involved, I will go and make another separate question out of it.

Yours sincerely,

Klaus P. Jantke

I think the definition of the word RPG depends on the context. Originally, role-playing was meant to be playing a role like an actor in a theatrical piece. Later, this concept was used by Moreno to construct a psychotherapeutical method out of this. His clients were supposed to find out more about themselves (e.g. their motives, desires, behaviours and personality traits), ultimately finding a solution for their personal problems.

The upcoming pencil-paper RPGs have something in common with this method, namely acting out to explore oneself and ultimately grow by the experiences. The aspect of growth was also symbolized by the player character gaining levels and learning skills. But by transfering these RPGs to computers, for players fully acting out became impossible. The acting part was reduced to having a meaningful narrational within the game in which the "character" was supposed to make meaningful choices that have an impact on the game world. But the leveling and skills part, which was introduced by pencil-paper RPGs, remained in computerbased RPGs.

Yes - Role Playing Game implies character development which is given form in skill development, levelling up and unlocking content or options for that character. 

In the industry, we even talk about RPG mechanics. It's some types of systems: Level up, ugrading (etc.) the object you control (character, car, spaceship, etc.). for instance, "Ratchet and Clank" plateformer game has RPG mechanics (weapon evolution).

Its a possible approach to define RPG genre, by this process of transformation, more  than by the roleplay aspect.

In your question you have identified RPGs as a separate category of games (and I completely understand why you want to avoid the word 'genre').  To me the answer is quite simply yes, because of what separates RPGs from other types of games (and not just digital).  Part of that is the ability for the character (as opposed to the player) to evolve.  You might want to check out my paper http://www.ijrp.subcultures.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/hitchens_drachen_the_many_faces_of_rpgs.pdf

for a rather more detailed argument of why I think sills that can be developed are one of the defining characteristics of an RPG

RPGs focused on leveling-up characters seem to be a subset, although an important one, of RPGs in general. I do not see character progression as the essence of game mechanics. Engagement can be maintained by exploration, logistic challenges of managing limited resources, storytelling, strategic interaction with NPCs or other players, problem solving, and many other avenues that do not imply progression.

Depends on the Narrative. Superman is Superman - to remove any of his skill set would betray the narrative, Superman cannot level up as he was ALWAYS Superman. The opposing side of this would be Batman - whose skill set comes from knowledge and gadgets - which are features of learning. If the narrative of the game is one which is exploring a growth narrative - then changing power sets and leveling allows for this. Otherwise, it is a distraction.

I think it depends on what the goal of the game first. following the 8 type of fun (MDA paper) by Hunicke, there could be mutiple goals when making an RPG. If your goal is a narrative fun, then it's okay for the character to have the same skill throughout the game. just like Joseph Alexander Brown said about superman. However if the goal is for a self expression, then character progression is very important in the game so that the player can 'be themselves" and adjust the skillset they need according to their playstyle.