Zombra

Ah yes! Josh's nefarious plan to screw over backers! Muhahahahahahahaha! Oh wait, it's not malice, it's laziness, right? Because they can't be bothered to figure out how to do incremental XP ... not like incremental XP has been in every single game they've ever made or anything. Anyway, there's no good reason for them to do this! They're just lazy and/or evil! Good job, internet detective! You cracked the case! Thank goodness!

MY FINAL POST (yeah right): Obsidian: this decision was bad for IE fans, and wonderful for role-players like me. I fully support this decision and look forward to a Pillars of Eternity in which I don't need to feel like killing is always a great idea. Thanks!

Err ... let's not overlook the possibility that Feargus just didn't know what the **** he was talking about. It sure didn't sound like he had a handle on it from those quotes.

Thank god for any system that lets me spend less time picking through little boxes sorting through what I want to keep and what I don't want to keep. IE inventory system was a pain in my ass. Magical unlimited stash, I embrace you. I do enough warehouse management at work. Note that I haven't seen the beta, so who knows, maybe the UI sucks, but I like the concept in general.

Split design is bad mkay. Kill XP or quest only XP, pick one system and do it well.

That's a totally valid complaint. If a new IE game is what you wanted, and you think kill XP is necessary for an IE game, then yes, can't argue with that. Personally, I don't want Baldur's Gate 1: Reprise. I just want a good game in this general style. lol. Dude, what did you just say about how naughty it is to use blatant exaggerations?

Yeah. DX:HR is a lovely example of bad xp balance. Stealth is by FAR the more profitable option. The incentive there to be stealthy is huge. The game coerces you very strongly to be nonlethal, the same way that kill xp coerces you to not only be lethal, but pick fights whenever possible. The thing is that it goes both ways. For everything you reward, you "punish" people who don't enjoy doing that. If you reward kills, you punish people who don't like killing. If you reward quests, you punish people who don't like to do quests. This is the problem with an abstract XP system - players are driven to grab all the cookies, so anything that smells like a cookie becomes something they are "supposed" to pursue. And obviously I meant "useful and relevant" in the context of the game world. The mayor's daughter is missing, that's a problem to be solved. Hey, I heard there are some bears living in the woods, that's not a problem to be solved, it's just a bag of XP to go kill for no reason.

Good to hear. I don't hang around here much. You're absolutely right, of course; cheerfully retracted. An entertainment system isn't obsolete if people are still entertained by it. However, it is worth taking note of the fact that we're talking about the very first character advancement system. It seems like a lot of people here have never played anything but D&D, and while its XP system may still be fun for them, there are other ways to reward players. There are simulationist systems, learn-by-doing systems, levelless systems, narrative systems, blah blah blah. To cling so tightly to the familiar while refusing to recognize its failures and limitations is ... well, somewhat childish. Note I am not referring to you Zansatsu or anyone in particular. You seem prepared to acknowledge that classic XP systems have some serious imperfections. Not everyone will. Yeah. Strongly agree. Sure. Note that I'm not interested in mass appeal. I can only argue for what I think would make the best game for me. Taking away the cookies for killing things is a step in the right direction for players like myself. Very good post overall by the way. Thanks for the response and for setting me right where I got a little off track.

Sorry who said it was essentially useless? Can you get 1 or 2 levels out of.. 12 through kill -xp? Yes. Can you offset quest XP and get that level sooner in a system where you gain no power until the DING of a level up. Yes. Kill -xp is not the driving force of that xp.. but it can tip the scale a bit sooner in your favor.. which is a fair reward for exploring for a few hours and not finding anything but a few bear assses and goblin ears. Only replying to your post because you said "serious question".. Was gonna write this off as troll response because you obviously went to the extreme.. again.. in reading my post. And I thank you for the reply. I was indeed serious. Something interesting has come up in this reply ... the assumption that exploration deserves a reward. Hear me out. As another poster on the Codex observed, the major difference in POV here is that one side basically wants to be rewarded for doing whatever they feel like (such as wandering around killing stuff for no reason). The other side wants to be rewarded for doing things that are useful and relevant. This is actually a pretty major difference. To me, 'exploration' is kind of lame if I can expect to find a cookie behind every tree ... in fact, at that point it becomes something I'm "supposed" to do. I can't tell you in how many games I've searched every corner of every building and cut down every shrub, for fear of missing something that would power me up. Not necessarily because I like exploring, but because I feel that if I don't collect all the cookies, I'm doing it wrong. I'm definitely doing it wrong if explorer players are level 5 by Act II and my guys are only level 3½. Finally, we have an RPG where you can explore if you actually care about what's there, but you don't lose cookies if you choose to be more direct in your problem solving. Yeah. I've sunk a lot of hours already into this argument. I don't ever expect all the forum goers to come to an agreement. I mostly wanted to post to reinforce the idea to anyone reading that there are definitely two sides to this debate, and to anyone reading from Obsidian, some of us think you made a great decision. I don't want an impression out there that the fans unanimously hate the new system. Nice one, Silent Winter. You nailed it. Sorry, I think you want to be talking to this guy. No one is talking about prohibiting total genocide of everything in the game world. That would indeed be an unrealistic concern. We are talking about removing the incentive to meaningless violence.

Ok let's try this again. Combat =/= walking. I mean quests are also unavoidable and I didn't see you compare them to walking. If someone said, quests are everywhere in this game, therefore quests must have XP, I would draw the same comparison. It's just not a valid reason. Ok so what is the problem there? You kill monsters whenever you come across them, you are rewarded with xp, they are monsters they will attack you anyways. Not really following what you are trying to say here. Right there you're kind of proving my point. Your assumption is "If it's there, I'm supposed to kill it." This is an assumption that has been reinforced for about 40 years by an outdated reward system. That's personal bias. If the game gives out the same amout of xp for the violent solution in small chunks of kill xp as it does for the nonviolent ones, the violent solution isn't systemically held up as superior. I agree that if violent and nonviolent solutions net the same amount of XP, and it's blatantly obvious that this is the case, then power balance is OK and incentive balance is OK. I have never seen this be the case that I'm aware of where kill XP is present. Even in a magical world where XP is equal no matter the approach despite the existence of kill XP, which I doubt has ever happened, kill XP promotes the perception that violence is the more profitable solution, which means that it still has a stronger incentive, even if the numbers are actually the same. Getting a cookie for every kill conditions you pretty fast to believe that killing is good. But... doing not story-related sidequests for quest xp isn't related to the story either. The current system doesn't encourage you to participate in the story more than the one in the IE games. Sorry, you're right. I should have said "stories", meaning all quest lines including non-critical-path ones.

Some people want to play an adventurer/explorer and not a servant. Want to advance in level? Here are your options: A) Do quests for npcs like a good serf. B) Do quests for npcs like a good serf. C) Do quests for npcs like a good serf. D) Do quests for npcs like a good serf. That's a valid complaint. You don't like a game in which you're encouraged to participate in the story. Can't argue with that. Guess this just isn't the game for you then. (And yes, before you say it, it's also valid to complain that this isn't the IE successor you were sold.) I can see that. I guess it's a question of scale. I don't see it as a problem that the game discourages unnecessary violence; even if there is a lot of necessary violence (for which you are indirectly given xp anyway), it doesn't follow that unnecessary violence should be given a cookie. Anyway, you shouldn't be playing Path of the Damned because you want sweet xp; you should be playing it because you are a ****ing badass who wants a ridiculous challenge. My opinion. There is a difference between the 2 wouldn't you agree? Walking doesn't cost you anything, while combat can kill you and will spend your resources, not to mention that it's harder then the former. Eh. You're missing the point. If combat needs to be rewarded because it is ubiquitous, then so does walking. If walking doesn't need to be rewarded, then the ubiquity argument doesn't hold up. No. Stop implying that incentives are all-or-nothing. You wouldn't walk across the country for 25 cents, but you would walk across the room for $100. When you attach a cookie to killing anything, it influences player behavior so that they want to kill stuff beyond reasonable motivation. They kill things when they have to, and whenever it is convenient, just to get the XP. Why wouldn't they?

Well ... walking is also unavoidable, yet the game doesn't give you xp for it constantly. If it did, you'd sure as hell be inclined to take the scenic route, wouldn't you? Of course it doesn't. But it sure encouarages it. No, I don't actually kill everything in sight, but having the abstract incentive there does make me consider the violent solution "superior" to other solutions. The game is basically telling me that killing is good even when there is no other reason for it. In PoE, killing isn't particularly good. The game only gives you an incentive to solve problems. So kill XP is essentially worthless? Why waste time arguing for its inclusion then? Serious question. And I'm not interested in psychologically profiling every individual player in the world. Don't be ridiculous. However, I am quite comfortable stating categorically that incentives influence behavior.

We've been having a big ugly talk about this on RPGCodex, and I just thought I'd come and weigh in here on the official forum as well. I am fine with the removal of combat xp. I am fine with xp coming strictly from questing. Removing the abstract incentive to kill for no other reason is a good step in my opinion (although I certainly understand why kill xp is fun and often enjoy games that use it). I am much happier with a game that says: here is your objective, achieve it however you want, there is no special incentive to do it one way or another. I am also much happier with a game where I see a squirrel and don't immediately think, "Kill it! That's worth 2 xp."

I played on Normal difficulty. If that makes me a lightweight, so be it. And, no, I didn't "rely" on scripts. I didn't stick my hands in my pockets during combat and assume that they would win every fight brilliantly. I used them as they were intended: to reduce necessary input for actions I wanted to take anyway. Normally, making my wizard run away from melee takes at least two mouse clicks. If I can reduce it to zero mouse clicks, that's good interface design. Regardless, for some folks, gaming is not about 100% efficiency. Obviously human decision is going to be smarter and more efficient than anything automated. For some of us, a certain level of automation is simply more fun than total micromanagement, especially in a RTwP environment with lots of moving parts. I don't expect "heavy investment" to take away from other development, but I do expect at least a few simple scripts like we saw in the IE games. After all, PoE does have AI programming in place already. If they do want to go whole hog and give us highly specific programmable scripts, I would definitely use them and combat would become much more fun for me.

Thanks for the reply JD. It seems that no one has any information on this topic. Where are all the gurus?

So tell me about the plans for AI scripts I can set for my party members. I ran a forum search and didn't find anything. I really enjoyed the specific, conditional behaviors I could set in Dragon Age: Origins (though I disliked that they were limited by character leadership skills). I also like the old IE type combat 'personalities' such as Aggressive Wizard or Cautious Fighter. What types of things will we see in PoE? Thanks! Z

Thanks, Barothmuk, for answering my question in a way that I indeed was able to quickly understand ... however, what you have shown is not any kind of proof that a society has to grow that way; simply that it has grown that way for some societies in the past. This is not any kind of proof that sexism must be "baked in" to any kind of society in particular, and certainly not specifically in a feudal system. It has happened in the past, yes; even often, yes; that does not make it an "inherent" quality. You are indeed confusing historical conicidence* with necessary characteristics. *To clear up possible confusion with this word, I want to stress that I am not speaking of blind chance. I mean that, historically, the appearance of feudal societies coincided with a time in history that also featured rampant sexism. Although there are certainly many factors that allowed them to coexist, there is still no reason to believe that one is necessary for the other.

Don't worry. I'm sure someone will be along soon to claim that women are "inherently" victim personalities who invite systematic repression in all worlds, regardless of their physical strength.

You keep saying that sexism is "inherent" to feudalism, but I don't see why. I'm guessing that you're confusing inherence with historical coincidence. I could be wrong, but I need more information to believe you. tajerio made a good point above which you didn't really address other that to repeat a few more times that sexism is always inherent to feudalism. Tell me, why is sexism a necessary part of every feudal system, historical or fictional? (Remember: historical precedent is not proof.) If possible, please try to give a digest version of the reason, in 100 words or less, in case I missed it in your earlier long posts. I'd like to jump to comprehension of the heart of the matter (again, if possible).

You know what else is a shame they didn't include? Child abuse! Child abuse is rampant even today, and back in the Renaissance, there were no child labor laws, so presumably it was a million times worse. Therefore, it is an appropriate theme for a game like this that everyone can enjoy. It's too bad they didn't think of it! Hopefully they will see this post and remember to include tons of child abuse in the next expansion.

Maybe not, but saying, "Hey! Let's make a game world centered around a bigoted and sexist system! This'll be great!" is. You mean showing the historical misogyny of feudal societies of Earth?

That's a terrible argument. So when posters in this thread say on the Pro side, No combat xp because they dislike it. Then it doesn't really count as a Pro? Well - first, it wasn't really intended as an argument, more of an observation intended to get people thinking positively. Thanks to everyone who jumped to "my side", but Hiro is correct, both logically and emotionally: "No combat XP" really isn't a Pro by itself - to really be a Pro, the idea needs to be fleshed out into a positive feature, such as: * Equal rewards for nonviolent mission resolution. The positive side may be implied, but until it is made explicit, it doesn't really count in my opinion. "No DLC" could be phrased as: *Game will ship complete with substantial expansion packs planned. This way it makes much more sense why it is a good thing. So both sides are kind of right. Something negative can imply a Pro if it can be turned around and phrased as a positive statement of something that is included, but it isn't really a Pro until you do. It may seem like meaningless semantics, but there is actually a big difference between liking something that's there and hating something that's not there. Two negatives only equal a positive in mathematics. I'm reminded of the "let's pretend" game I often play with my co-workers: "Let's pretend you could be doing whatever you want right now. What would it be?" A very common answer is "I wouldn't be here at work." See why that's not answering the question? So: how would you change "no romance" into something that is meaningfully positive?

People are perfectly entitled to dislike content types for whatever reason they wish, and I agree that it's not cool to say, "You only said that because you want this." However, it doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike". "Lack of broken glass" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of romance" isn't either. It's just something that's not there.

I'm not against it, but I'm also not interested. It will be game content that I never see if it is included. I would prefer to be able to do any companion related quest material without following a romance plot. Again, chalk this up to writing quality. I never finished BG2, so I can't comment directly on how it was handled, but from what I'm seeing here, several characters were written only as romance-fodder; you could either be enemies (but still hang out) or lovers, but nothing else. I don't think anyone wants to see that in future games. You should be able to romantically reject someone without destroying the entire relationship (even if this is not always true in real life ). It's OK with me if occasional quest material is "for lovers only", and then only if the writing makes sense that it wouldn't come up among "just good friends". I don't need to see every quest on every playthrough; just like there can be assassin quests that my paladin will never do. But yeah, at least 9 times out of 10, if a character has something they need help with, they'll want help from a strong leader even if they're not screwing them, and it won't make sense to gate that content.

It's interesting to see so many arguing against romance, and all apparently with the same reason: they don't like bad writing. Nobody seems to be against the subject matter itself, as long as it's written well. Maybe we should be looking for authors in other mediums (particularly those in which romance is secondary) who actually do write it well, and apply those lessons to romance in games.