Razsius

No, no, no per swing of sword etc. would get a bit ridiculous and be problematic like Arcanum. The sub objectives would simply be things that you do on the way towards whatever larger objective/quests you are going for (lockpicking doors/chests to rob the house, killing barbarians to wipe out the barbarian clan, etc.). The perks would only be gained for the higher tier things like killing 100 bandits or w/e or robbing Bill the Uber Noble's house blind. All the sub objectives would give normal xp and you'd level normally like the IE games.

Okay let's see... you lockpick the door and get xp for completing the sub-objective of "I want the chest of loot inside this noble's house" you are awarded xp for completing said sub-objective. As for the basilisk case Stone Cold Killer might be a bonus to petrification resistance or a damage increase vs. basilisks because you have fought the basilisks enough times and learned as a human to get better at killing/not dying to them. That make sense? Edit: Oh and you wouldn't have kill xp only objective xp so the system wouldn't be redundant.

Razsius, the more productive side to the debate of this thread is really enjouyable, but here I'm afraid you lost me. Aren't you basically saying here (by interval 1) that each single kill, each single trap, each picked pocket, should be seen as a tiny micro-objective? And if that's true, that would be exactly the same system as the great majority of CRPGs adhere to: Kill xp, trap xp, pick-pocket xp, etc. Or perhaps I've just misunderstood it all, I am a bit bushed. No, the objectives are simply set to the number 1 instead of say 5, 10, 20 or 34.678235. It's a perfectly valid number after all and it's also the easiest to count by thus it simply makes the most sense for the sake of balance.

Doesn't this actually promote the very "degenerate" gameplay the xp system was supposed to avoid? If a player's at 99/100 traps disarmed for this "challenge" what's the blatantly obvious course of action they are going to take? No... no wait! I got it! I found a way for this objective xp system to work and it's so obvious too! I'd be converted to the objective xp system cause with these easy steps. 1) Award xp to the player for doing things they want to do. This could be killing a bandit, disarming a trap, pickpocketing someone, reading an in game book to learn about game lore, etc. 2) Set the aforementioned objectives' intervals to 1 and make the objectives repeatable. 3) Award higher tiered rewards to higher tiered objectives. Things like "kill the divine dragon Asura" would award much higher amounts of xp along with perks or skills. Killing 25 basilisks awards the Stone Cold Killer trait or something. 4) List all of them somewhere (preferably in the journal). 5) Profit XP problem solved. Objective xp proponents get what they wish and players lose no freedom. There you go Lephys I found your silver bullet. You're pretty boss yourself Prime and yes Keldorn is obviously my favorite Baldur's Gate character .

The problem - as I see it - is that this breaks down when you go to "sneaking past" people multiple times and also the problem of getting double XP (sneak past then return and kill for more xp). The former and latter can be fixed situationally; you could give each "entity" an XP pool that can only be taken once, for example. But it seems that Obsidian wants to fix it at the upper level of their design. Whether it'll work or not will remain to be seen. I'm pretty certain their intent is not to alter balance so that fighting is undesirable (or unviable). Sneak xp is perhaps the hardest to award without running into a munchkin mentality. The best I got is to have it awarded through the quest (or "objective") for every bandit or w/e you have sneaked past gets tied into the end reward then close off the area (I know people hate this but it more then makes sense. If you rob a place they'd naturally increase security for future robbery attempts). That solution btw is straight from VtM: B so I don't know why it wouldn't be viable. You got rewarded extra xp for not killing the humans in the museum. I always ended up sneaking all the way through so i'd say it worked. Also factions/reputation, going back and killing them might not be a viable option as far as npc x or faction x is concerned. @Lephys Yes, yes it is and it should be perfectly fine in a combat focused game. I don't know what else to tell you Lephys I really don't.

Then the game should award XP for key skills that allow those play styles to shine. Disarmed a deadly trap? Award XP. Negotiated your way through a grueling stand-off? Award XP. It's so, so simple, yet people seem to hate the idea of being rewarded for what they're good at. I don't get it either. In fact, I even wanted you to be awarded for just learning more about the game world's history and lore and about the backround of certain key characters but Lephys would probably give me an example of how reading every book the developers place would over level you compared to someone who didn't. But the minute I attach "objectives" to this reading it would be perfectly fine. Do people really want the system to point out how they should play? Edit: In fact, why *shouldn't* I get xp from reading books. I learn plenty from what I read.

@Amentep You still forget there's a quest (objective if you so wish) xp system in place in the IE games as well. They are largely combat based games so a lot of things turn into combat but it's not like i'm against awarding a living avalanche of xp for doing something like diplomatically negotiating an alliance of the two strongest factions. Except this particular player could have the change of heart at any particular time it could be at the very first guard, somewhere in the middle or the very last child and why would the evil quest giver set such objectives? Earlier in the thread people found it absurd that you'd get rewarded for partial completions. Here's xp for killing all the town guards from a quest giver that requires annihilation? Not to mention the aforementioned objectives are "arbitrary" anyways. I'll concede the point here but I think Project Eternity is going to be a little more open ended anyways. Playing my assassin through the BG series was some of the most fun i've had however though yes it obviously included lots of killing. I'd like it to be a touch more like Arcanum myself which seems to reward players a little bit more evenly in regards to playstyles (though it's still somewhat combat weighted). As long as players get BAWS xp for being a boss as a diplomat or thief when it makes the most sense I think this can be handily remedied. Still this was purported to be a combat focused game so... @Valorian That atmospheric music is A++ quality seriously. I think Mark Morgan's the one who wrote the Planescape soundtrack (don't quote me) and that was easily some of the best stuff i've ever heard. I didn't think they'd have that much, this quickly at such a high as hell quality. I am more then a little happy that i'll be getting a copy of that game because of the reward tier I pledged to for PE. Makes me a little sad i'm not backing Wasteland 2 but I just didn't have the money back then. Kickstarter's been giving me nothing but good vibes lately. We might just have a new age of awesome games. Age of Games returns! @TRX850 See ya on the upswing TRX *nods*. Edit: Thanks btw, that does actually mean something to me and though I might be a little... coarse at times it's only because I expect reasonable answers from you guys. I always assume you can change my mind with something I didn't think of.

This might be my very last post on the subject. I'm kind of thinking about going the way of PrimeJunta and bowing out. Lephys statement that kill xp proponents had somehow been holding out on a way to magically make objective xp work was just a little irksome. Lephys if I knew that I would've posted it a long, long time ago. I don't know if you realize that or not. @Ffordesoon I think I understand where you are coming from. I might not agree... but I understand. I remember this one time where Anomen and Keldorn decided to strike up a conversation while I was playing BG: ToB. Anomen was going on and on about how awesome being good is and that life was all happy fun time flowers for paladins/clerics like Keldorn and him. Keldorn then proceeded to tell a rather graphic and somewhat horrifying story about his past. Anomen didn't have much to say on the matter... in fact I really didn't either. For just a single moment I think I had forgotten that Keldorn was actually just a companion in a game I was playing rather then a veteran warrior who was telling a story with a moral to it. For once, a companion had gotten past the usual characterization that they are so much known for and instead become much closer to a character written from a great book (ie they are human rather than having human-like traits). It's probably the best writing in a rpg i've seen to date. Nothing else has ever made me forget myself... nothing. You see the problem with objective xp is that it is an inherently static system. It simply cannot mold or adapt itself to a players whims as it only rewards players for whatever the predefined objectives actually are. Let's assume that a player is attempting to complete an evil quest that involves killing off an entire village. Just go in, slaughter them all and then return to the quest giver and get whatever xp and rewards you get (maybe loot off the corpses as well). This particular player likes to rp his character and make choices based on personality he/she has set or maybe the player is so into the nuanced atmosphere of the game they have "lost" themselves if you will having fun beyond measure. He/she kills off the entire village except for a single child and for whatever reason (rping or otherwise) simply cannot bring him/herself to kill off that last npc and complete the quest. An "objective" xp system awards no xp for this because the predefined objective of the evil questgiver was to make sure noone lives in the village but the player simply cannot complete the quest. You see the funny thing is in this case the player *has* completed a huge objective (because objectives aren't quests remember?) the player character has simply had a change of heart but the predifined game system that is staring the player blatantly in the face will simply not recognize this. In a kill xp system the player would've gotten the "reward" of the xp per militia/town guard/innocent villager death and might've racked up a considerable sum of xp. Thing is this particular player might not actually *want* this xp because of the player character's change of heart and because you can't actually not earn the xp in this case. It would forever be staring the player in the face "you have gotten more experienced by killing the innocent." The player character now has "history." To simply say this was not accounted for in the game goals would be a crushing defeat for any player choice. Supposedly the CRPG fanbase are much more into roleplaying and exalting player choice over those "stupid people" who like JRPGs anyways. So if the answer is "not supported because game" then there really isn't much more to talk about is there? Maybe the supposedly open minded are instead very close minded individuals and really can't purport to be much of anything besides maybe hypocrites. If you do not understand this example there really isn't much more I can say/type on the matter. There is only one real thing I could say to you if that were the case. I hope you never run into a game system that crushes your preferred playstyle. That is all.

@Lephys Depends on how the quest is implemented. If there's a release them or gas them button then it should reward equal xp but if you have to engage in actual combat and spend time stabbing them in the face (even if it is to kill a helpless creature in a cage) then you should get xp per kill. Oh and even if there is a button for the gas but the player instead decides (for whatever reason) to take the time to stab them in the face because he/she is rping a sadist then there should be reward for the time. Let the robust reputation system handle the consequences of the actions. In case you don't understand by now I don't like equal rewards for unequal actions. Nor do I like having to divine how a quest "should" play out. I do not like systems that essentially dictate how I should play. I have yet to see an example of how an objective based system does not do this. You gave a flawed example of how it would "not make sense" to reward "x" (in this case killing a helpless creature in a cage) I gave you a counter example that provided a path for a player to do so and even outside of something I would think of doing. I never play evil characters but it really isn't my right to say someone is playing the game the "wrong way." I kind of had to learn that fact when I played VtM: B because I realized the path I preferred was closed off or not accounted for. This "objective" based xp system simply does not make sense. This is a prime example of how easy it is to confuse and confine a player. Your main problem with the Dead Space 3 game is that the checkpoint system makes little sense compared to their prior system. The system itself is not inherently flawed but it makes very little sense compared to something they've used in the past. The fact of the matter is the system they used in Dead Space 3 is not actually flawed but the fact that you can't understand why they would've used such a system *is*. So why would it be a "terrible decision" Lephys? Does this argument sound familiar? I certainly hope it does. I believe I said this prior to your quoted statement. If you don't feel like reading what I type then i'll pass on actually responding and yes i'm well aware that you can make anything an objective or quest but if you do it so randomly that you lose the player in the process it's kind of pointless and if you don't reward every "path" a player might take then they lose choice. Balancing between those two is anything but easy. If it was you would've given me a satisfactory example or example game by now. I'm still waiting btw if you do have one in mind. Yes, yes they do. Your example system rewards the player for the amount of time they spend playing the game. The one who plays the game the longest will have the most xp. It's not quite as easy to implement a balanced system as you think it is Lephys. I never asked that. It was fairly obvious from my second statement that you were simply describing "someone(s)" which would be fine if "someone(s)" knew who they/he/she were. If you don't wish to clarify the statement then it might be best not to post it in the first place. It's perfectly fine if you completely missed my Degenerate Gameplay example. I don't feel like retyping the whole thing however. @Sacred Path Then the problem you had was not with the xp system but the fact that there was no resource cost for performing the combat action. They're already fixing the rest spam issue with rest checkpoints. It never came up for me because I wouldn't spam rest but I could see it being an issue. Also regarding the xp issue that was part of the "cost" of the choice. If you add TRX850s system into the equation there is again more "cost" for both of the paths. If there are no consequences of a choice then there is no choice.

Except there was already an inherent choice in clearing an IE game map. The player who completely cleared the map had to spend the time and resources to do so. He was rewarded xp for doing this. A player who wished to stealth through the map would've payed limited or ZERO resources to do so. He would've lost out on xp. This is an actual choice because there are consequences for BOTH actions. Edit: Though the consequences might be unequal. Lol that is so true. Balance can so be achieved in other ways.

Why you *wouldn't* want kill xp in a "combat focused" game baffles the hell out of me.

@Ffordesoon Wait, why? I mean I can kind of understand why you'd say that for Planescape as the game was heavily focused on dialogue and learning things about your past etc. as well as the combat being atrocious but even Chris believed that he should have added more combat to the game (though I might highly disagree with this considering how the combat was terrible in that game). Baldur's Gate literally had you fighting entire armies in the end so where exactly is the line between "combat game" and a "quest focused" one? @TrashMan Ouch man i'm sorry. If the kill xp system is something you consider that bad then you're probably not having much fun playing a great many of the rpgs out there... I feel ya in a way at least. @Lephys Your example makes absolutely no sense Lephys. If the quest is to set the creatures free OR to kill them then it stands to reason that the quest would reward BOTH paths regardless of whether you (the designer) would think it's right or not. To not do so is not only to have essentially lied to the player but you would've taken their freedom of choice along with it. You can set the creatures free and gain something from it or you can kill them and gain nothing. There's only one path there Lephys. This is a prime example of why I hate an "objective" based system. I don't need it to make choices for me. As for your second example no you don't want people using obvious exploits to gain an unnatural number of levels. You should design a game that doesn't have these and I don't think anyone's arguing against that. So the idea is to reward the player whenever the designer wishes rather than when the player is playing the game? Talk about a completely arbitrary system. Which is a more arbitrary version of a kill xp system. Sounds like "fun". Answer: yes, yes I do want every skill based action to award xp. In fact, with TRX850's robust as hell reputation system I want some of the more "simplistic" quests as well to be in the game. Trying to join a guild of badass mercenaries that have a reputation of being the go to guys? I want them to test my skills to make sure i'm a good fit and send me on a "kill x amount of bandits" quest. Trying to join the Night Thieves guild? You'd better be able to rob x amount of houses blind before you can join. Bonus points if the "simple" quests turn into something more or play a larger role in the quest chain for the faction. Want to join both to get both sets of xp? Maybe mercs and thieves don't play so nice. Maybe mercs chop limbs off thieves? You can still do it though you'd just have to live with whatever consequences come about. Completely untrue statement. Xp is always discriminate against certain playstyles. If this was not true, this argument would not be around in the first place. No matter what system you use nor how you award the xp you will always, always, ALWAYS run into this. Arbitrarily not awarding xp "in certain instances" does NOT fix this. Giving equal rewards to unequal paths also does NOT fix this. Rewarding for every action someone takes does NOT fix this. Rewarding someone similiarly or even moreso depending on whether the solution was "most correct" does NOT fix this. Parity of choice only comes about when paths are not equal but are too difficult to discern the "best" path. A robust reputation system however, would truly make things "equal" because it simply does not discriminate against playstyle. If for every action you took in game you had to pay an "equal" consequence you would have a near perfect balancing system and it would be one that never, ever limited a player's choice. This is the solution, it really is that simple. Lephys what is this? 'I'm kinda not naming any names but there are varying individuals or maybe not that don't wish to explore options within the objective based xp system or simply say that any "compromise" will never work because they can't think ahead.' Did that about sum it up? Let's just leave statements like this *out* of our posts next time eh? If you don't wish to discuss anything or keep an open mind that's fine too but let's leave the pitiful beat around the politically correct bush attacks at "someone(s)" for these "others" to do. Been there, done that. It promoted no discussion and provided no commentary on the matter of any real worth. So no, I won't be doing that again. Compromise is inherently flawed anyways because it's inherently arbitrary. @Somna No need to worry about it. The compromise was inherently flawed but if you really want to know Helm quoted me on the very last page of the Degenerate Gameplay thread that outlined the structure of the flawed compromise. @Hassat You really think that's the *best* solution Hassat? Because those particular zombies award no loot (and now no xp) there is *no* reason to fight. Arcanum's prowling had no resource cost to speak of and while it might be somewhat difficult to have gotten around all those zombies you would've been awarded the same amount of xp as someone who fought them all. It took me more then three-quarters of my entire healing supply plus half my molotov supply to kill them all. The resource cost for the various paths is more then a little out of kilter. Essentially, this objective based system has shifted the "correct" path through from combat to as little combat as you can afford (ie stealth). Maybe you find this to be perfectly valid solution but this is Razsius' 101 of "why I hate the ever living crap out of the 'objective' xp based system." It's not objective for one and it just swings the pendulum a different way for another. It's VtM: B all over again. Honestly, I wasn't expecting a response like that. I was expecting something I couldn't predict... something... better?

I think we often get a little hung up on the "little things" as it were. In the real world, there are very few times one can commit the "perfect crime." In worlds that have the divination spell school it should be fairly obviously that a perfect crime that you thought you had committed wasn't so perfect. Tack on the fact that if a sudden bout of murders and thefts occurs in a town it really is highly unlikely that the local authorities will think that someone within the populace has suddenly become erratic. No, the much more obvious answer is the adventuring group that has just recently come into town. The authorities do not have to see you blatantly commit your robberies to surmise that it was *you* that has done so. Your reputation would, of course, be effected. As for misplaced trust, well... it's misplaced isn't it? A robust reputation system should allow all this and reflect it at the same time. Besides, in a world where there are Cipher detectives I believe we can allow for a little more realism then "but he didn't see me rob that house!"

I hear ya TRX850. I also have updated my view of things. Your way of thinking is essentially my way of thinking there's no real reason to actually compromise anyways (the compromised system is metagamey in it's own way anyways). The reputation system should effect how your game plays is the most logical, concise and most importantly realistic version of how to "fix" munchkining. Kill quest givers for no explicit reason at all and the reputation system/companion system will take into account that you might actually just be a psychopath. It makes perfect sense and doesn't actually remove any player choice but you would "pay" in essence for your choice. It would also add a sense of realism and depth to the RPGs we all know and love to play. As well, having the game world change based on your choices has been something i've long wanted to see robustly implemented in the game archetype that's been my passion for the better part of 20+ years. The "price" of developing such a robust system would be more then well spent developer resources hence there is no real reason not to put it in. As a sidenote, let me clarify a few things concerning my views of the munchkin. Personally, I don't give a flying rip whether they do things like rest spam or go out of their way to get the most "optimal" form of xp in a system. The only thing it seems to really influence is whether they get enjoyment out of their game hence my above (horribly weak) analogy. The only time I DO care about munchkins is when developers decide to adopt a system to fix something I never took advantage of in the first place and only largely because i've gotten previously burned by the "fix" before. That obviously would not make me the happiest of campers. Anyways, good to see ya TRX850 i'll try to provide some backup across the threads (though i'm the slowest of slow typists). Edit: Oh and again Arcanum has to be one of the best games i've played in awhile. It's been a hell of a lot more fun then PS: T which was sadly quite disappointing because of all the hype. Arcanum has to be the sleeper hit of the decade. Why didn't anyone tell me this sooner?

It seems i'm missing all the fun in this thread. You know it's funny in the Degenerate Gameplay thread I attempted an actual compromise and it didn't seem to work. Instead, I got called childish and generally didn't have any of my pertinent questions actually answered. It really was a somewhat ongoing thing however, so i'm not entirely sure what this meant. I could figure it only meant one of two things. People simply did not know the answer to them or the questions were entirely too pertinent. I suspect the latter. Needless to say though compromising will not be happening again. I only ever allow myself to make the same mistake once. @Ffordesoon That has to be the most arbitrary statement i've ever seen. @Lephys Yes, but who defines when this should occur and why? As well, should this effect a potential loss in player choice? Concerning your analogy from the other thread Lephys regarding a glass filled with water, I will expand upon it. The water in the glass is the level of "fun" a player might be having (in this case drinking). The problem is an objective xp based system is more a goblet then a glass (ie the design is significantly more complex). The glass of water (kill xp system) has a rather large crack in it that spills the water only when people attempt to be overly greedy and chug the water a certain way. The goblet (objective xp based) system "allows" you to spill water all over your shirt if you attempt to drink from a certain side of the goblet as it has a much larger crack in it. I know of zero masterwork designers who can make a flawless glass or goblet. If you have a specific example in mind feel free to share. Lately, i've been playing the hell out of Arcanum. Man is it ever a great game as i'm having a blast. The irony is it's yet another game that was mentioned on the kickstarter video that not only is based off a kill xp system but one that rewards how many times you hit the mob. Oh the metagaming you could do because of that. Now I realize that this system is not exactly the most balanced so I will give an example scenario within the game that is "fixable" by an objective based system. If you've played Arcanum at all then you would know there's a quest that involves finding a vital piece of information about a very important ring (to you). The quest eventually leads you inside a tomb filled with zombies. These zombies award no loot but do award kill xp (obviously). The necromancers at the very end have the answers you need. You do not have to kill them (in fact it might be a bad idea to do so) and yes there is most definitely a way to munchkin this particular quest. There are three levels to the tomb and a stealth character might miss out on a significant chunk of xp for not killing however, unlike the character I have made and play a stealthy, thief character by this point in time has emptied the contents of a significant number of locked chests more then I have. What would be the BEST way to "fix" this in an objective based xp system? Or is this going to be another question noone can answer? Edit: You can change any of the Arcanum mechanics or parts of the quest itself just don't change the nature of the quest at all (the necromancers have vital information that you need).

@Lephys At least I try Lephys. I don't say it's always impossible btw Lephys just that there would be specific "holes" in an objective based xp system which would make the game oh I don't know... not fun? I guess you could say i'm saying it's highly improbable rather than straight out impossible (largely because nothing is impossible). Wait, wait, wait what? *Looks up* oh right you believe everything can be solved regardless. Oh there's something inherently wrong with this? The reward for killing something that can kill you in a single shot is a fair amount of xp and the satisfaction of actually surviving. Stating that maybe you should get some kind of reward is a little constraining to player choice don't you think? Well the basilisk may give you something or it may give you absolutely nothing. Sounds like great fun. Oh it would be very easy to make them an objective but would you do the same for every single monster type you may run into? I'll turn that question around should every action I take be dictated by whether there's a quest giver for the types of monsters I wish to hunt or maybe the ones I just run into while exploring? Is there an arbitrary cap on the quest giver like "Kill 15 basilisks"? Why do I not get xp for killing 14 of them? Do I get xp for killing more than 15? Maybe it's just a quest turn in for basilisk tails and I get xp per tail... but what happened to degenerate kill xp? Is the npc now a degenerate kill quest npc? What was the point of even creating such a quest giver if it's going to resemble kill xp anyways? Do we change it to basilisk tails give gold instead of xp? Why is this not degenerate gold? Would you like some more questions? @TheMufflon I've never known such a petty bastard. I didn't realize what the supposed "problem" with my rationale was until I realized I was talking to a damn munchkin. My apologies I forgot I was actually taking into account game systems when I was using my reasoning behind the quest. Yes, your problem is "maybe they don't leave" right? I.e. for the guy that hates how "mechanical" a quest giver can be because it always assumes your "success" in the completion of a quest and yes it does. In fact, I can't think of a single example where this is not true in rpgs and it probably has something to do with game systems having you know actual boundaries. Let's assume instead you code for the fact that you can spit in the player's face instead. Why would this be "fun" exactly? No, scratch that I don't even want to know your reasoning. My it must be nice to have selective memory. I.e giving xp or not giving xp right? Unless you misunderstood one of my original concepts i'm not sure... Kind of hard to tell when a guy can't decide the tense of a sentence he types. As opposed to what? Putting the player in the designers box? I'll take the former thank you i'm not sure I want anything to do with whatever the hell you're advocating. Funny how I didn't grind at all or munchkin any quests in Baldur's Gate yet still seemed to come out with enough xp to complete the game handily. It's almost like that xp system actually worked and i've played through 4+ times no less what a droll and boring game it must've been. Meanwhile, Mr. objective based xp system VtM: B decided to handily insult any "choice" i decided to make concerning combat. Getting snubbed by "Mr. Objective's" game system totally removed the conflict I never had from playing Baldur's Gate and replaced it with roses. Or not. I don't need designers to "fix" something I never had a problem with in the first place. Like your line of reasoning (lawl), it totally forgoes that there might be players that play the game outside of their "box" the only thing I prefer fixing are players that exploit game systems. I wouldn't know though you seem to imply you have vast experience in the matter. Said the guy who's contributed basically nothing to this thread.

@Lephys You mean why are the quest xp rewards different or why award for mini objective completions? Largely it was all for "balancing" each of the paths. The combat path might give the best xp but maybe players view it as giving the least rewards. It could feel balanced to the player however because of this. Largely, I just tried to make it as complex as possible so at some point you'd think "well this feels like the most fun path to take" and then you'd make your choice based on that rather than anything else (note: unless you're a retarded munchkin who's about to get him/herself in trouble). It's funny that you ask that because it kind of illustrates the problem. The difference is in the objective xp based system your "choices" are tied to designer objectives meaning they are setting up the choices for you. If it is outside of their designer then it essentially no longer becomes a choice to you the player you can make it a choice but the game will not reflect that. Essentially you might find yourself doing something completely meaningless which is exactly what happened in VtM: B and their objective xp based system. Mind you it's a very linear game. Hypothetically, PE should be non-linear in at least some sense. The more non-linear the game the more likely this situation can occur because players might find themselves "outside the design" if you will. This is firmly illustrated in that I had to go out of my way to make an "evil path" for players that might feel like saying "screw you" to the quest giver. I even had to go out of my way to find a "turn in" point for the evil path because going back to the original quest giver clearly would've been a problem. Things were arbitrarily difficult in the one example I gave. Now do what I had to do for an entire game. I'm trying to create a best case scenario and it's pretty rare that I completely overreact. Trying to create an objective based system that doesn't slap your wrist for taking the "wrong" path is anything but easy and i'd say it's near impossible if you have a parity of xp for each path. There is no parity of choice so I really don't know the point of trying to make one. You keep saying "yea it will work" in which case this cynic will simply ask you "yea how?" People really need to reign in the absolutes. You might say all this Lephys but have yet to prove how all this will actually work.. especially considering how non-linear the game should be. What if I want to go hunt basilisks? They going to give me nothing? Are we going to replace "xp problem" with "loot problem"? Or maybe I need an npc to tell me to go kill them? Talk about a training wheels scenario. Let's hold the player's hand all throughout the game.

Do you even know what post hoc means? Just randomly throwing out "logical grievances" doesn't make them actually true you know. If the original goal of the quest was "get these guys to leave" it would stand to reason that completion of said objective would result in them oh I don't know actually leaving or dieing (which is just leaving in another sense). I hate people that try to grasp at straws. Design games in your spare time do you Mr. Munchkin? You're ever so talented. Funny, I could've sworn Josh said that toggling xp options was easy say like a page or so back? Oh look there it is! Funny that. That's only a viable option if game designers allow it to be a viable option not because you say so. A giant load of hogwash if I ever saw it and even if it is true then maybe it's high time we beat it out of the players. Munchkins will stop being munchkins if they get burned enough times. My version of progress allows a "Hammer Session" variant of therapy. I don't think you quite understand that if I was designing a game i'd be a munchkins worst nightmare. If you put the Eye back or leave it or whatever you'd still have a very pissed off cult when you came back. Good luck doing any of the following now 1) Staying alive 2) Getting an audience with their leader and 3) Completing the quest. You probably assumed they'd reset but instead you'd have jack all for options. You still fail the test i'm afraid.

@Prime The only games where I really notice the numbers are the grindy ones like the Diablos and certain MMOs and stuff. Coincidentally, these are also the "rpgs" I tend to least like to play. This analogy would hold true if the "placed xp" didn't directly interfere with the taste of the "wine." VtM:B slapped me in the face HARD multiple times when I chose "combat option." The "wine" didn't taste very good at all in fact it tasted more like a poison because even people firmly in the camp of placed xp realized that the scenario I had given them equated to a meaningless choice by me. I wouldn't exactly call that a success of an xp system. There was NEVER a point in time where I thought the combat option was equally viable to a stealth path. Never. Stealth was pretty much always easier. You can tell me that after you answer the question above. Which path is "best" in the above scenario? If it's hard to figure out that means there's actual choice involved not the non-choice of Josh's example or the non-existent options of VtM:B. Simple. The optimal path is a combination of the Combat Path, the Stealth Path, and the Diplomatic path. E.g., first you sneak in and rob the secret room, then you sneak back out and approach them diplomatically, and once you've taken over the cult you kill everyone. This yields the following rewards: 30,000 quest completion XP, 15,000 XP for killing the cult leader, 12,500 XP for finding the treasure room, 10,000 XP for tricking the cult, all the loot in the entire complex, all the cult leaders items, and your choice of quest reward item. It is by far the most profitable solution. This is why rewarding XP based on using tools, rather than achieving goals, is a bad idea: it encourages the player to use more tools than is necessary to complete a task, resulting in redundancy. Apparently I didn't make this clear enough but each of those paths are exclusive to completing the quest. There is no "all 3" option. If you do the stealth path first and come back all you'll find are dead bodies and an empty cave. You have, after all, just stolen the only artifact of their god they possessed. The cult leader would've likely lost complete control of his cult and the members would have lost morale and will. You would come back to nothing which is why the quest was completed in the first place. The quest for those who can't figure it out is "Remove the cult that is menacing our town/city." If you try the diplomatic option they have again left their cave as you told them to. They now follow you their "god." The artifact is "yours." If you for some stupid reason try to betray one of the few advantages you have gained by using the Evil Path you will gain zip for kill xp (because they are now friendly to you) and paltry loot off the collective members corpses. That is of course assuming you do not get horribly overwhelmed by near endless spawning hordes of them if you initiate on them wrong. You have failed this test quite handily.

. I'm with Helm on this one, I mean what the hell this statement makes no sense. Just what kind of rpgs you been playing all your life? ALL of them have "numbers go up" including xpless systems like those in Elder Scrolls games. I don't get it Prime... @PrimeJunta A statement I can certainly agree with. Funny how we seem to want the same things. I don't know about that. D&D mechanics were clunky as hell when adopted for a crpg. Those 6 second rounds drove me nuts as I had to constantly guess when I could chug another potion or use another item and at the difficulty I always play at 6 seconds is your death if you aren't careful. I could also do without the AC mechanics of D&D and i'm not particularly attached to D20 rolls, etc. These mechanics are certainly things i'm familiar with but it's not like it's the only system i've ever seen used in rpgs. In fact, this is probably the area rpgs should always be "evolving." Anyways, let me tag you out as you could probably use some rest. @Hassat and Lephys You guys push me even when I don't want to be pushed. I shouldn't really be surprised though as it's not like I can't understand the feeling of wanting to talk/interact with an individual I deem as "more than worth it." Though, you should see it just a little from my perspective, I tend to get just a little worn out when I feel that a certain game designer isn't even trying to see what I believe to be an issue as a problem. Still, I owe you guys an apology as I did overreact a bit and besides from your posts did come an idea. One that should hopefully illustrate the point of why Josh's example of a choice is actually no choice at all and why I basically completely and fundamentally disagree with it. It's Origin Bullet time . Try not to get hit by one.... You know it's funny after Lephys last post I realized that I would actually be okay with 0 xp as a penalty for not using your head as a gamer/roleplayer. So in that sense I propose a simple hybrid system no combat xp for neutral or friendly mobs/npcs. Killing a neutral goblin faction that's sitting around in the middle of nowhere not really harassing anybody really shouldn't be rewarded. I suppose in that sense i'm tired of playing a person only interested in mass genocide. Completely ignoring the hostile faction of hobgoblins ambushing people on the road between cities? Yea you should take an xp hit for that. Roleplaying a coward should not be a viable option and it sure as hell shouldn't be rewarded for it. Neutral bears and wolves wandering the woods that only become aggressive if you get close makes more realistic sense and xpwise shouldn't really be rewarded though maybe you can trade in bear pelts for gold and in the process piss off the nearby Druids of the Evergrove. So you can do it but you don't have to do it. Likewise, any combat forced on a player or proposed as a viable option should simply be rewarded and handily too if you have to spend a good chunk of resources. One of my favorite things to do in Baldur's Gate was to go basilisk hunting and as I recall there wasn't much in the way of treasure or quests that directed you to do so. Instead, it was simply more of a challenging hunt of a legendary monster. Getting zip xp and no loot for an enemy that can instantly kill you is more than a little lame and kind of defeats the entire purpose of rewarding a player for going out of their way to do things "off the track." I don't need npcs pointing in a direction saying "there's a sense of wonder right over there." But here's where it all comes together with an example and perhaps to show the very reason why I think combat xp is a good thing not an inherently system breaking bad thing. So the scenario is a hostile cult faction of a long forgotten god has recently moved into a nearby cave complex of the town/city you are questing in. They are collecting a toll/harassing/taxing all who pass their "sacred grounds" this obviously does not fly with the local authorities. Amidst the faction is both a cult leader (obviously) and a sacred artifact of their god (Eye of the Forgotten God). There are 4 ways to solve the quest and the rewards of solving it each way give an actual choice to you the player. Combat Path = 30k xp for quest completion + 15k xp for killing cult leader + 20k misc. kill xp + loot + unique loot off cult leader + quest reward (Living weapon?) The combat path through the quest would require both brains and brawn. It would not be an easy brute force kill everything in sight method to solve the quest but an infiltration of a heavily fortified enemy compound. Cult members being able to raise the alarm would equate to a quick death by horde (ie near endless spawning cultists). Faction reputations might rise or fall because you handled the quest in a blood filled fashion. This could be good or bad for you the player though it might be hard to tell. The Living Weapon quest reward might be uniquely powerful weapon and be more than worth the effort of taking this particular path but again it would largely be up to the player on what it's true value was. Stealth Path = 25k xp for quest completion + 12.5k xp for finding the cult treasure room + 15k+ in gold and stolen merchant items + quest reward (Cowl of the Spirit Fox) The stealth path through the quest would require careful timing and patience through the cave stronghold of the cultists. In order to steal the Eye of the Forgotten God and thus destroy the cult's entire reason for existence, the player would have to stealthily gather data by listening in on conversations among various npcs as well as filching a randomly placed code book off a key member of the cult (can only be acquired through the "pickpocket" skill). Finding the hidden cult treasure room and filching everything in it would set events in motion that only allow you to find a path quickly through the cave complex or be completely overrun by the now very angered cultists. Staying to fight would simply not be an option. The hidden room would only be found if you took this stealth path. Turning in the Eye of the Forgotten God to the quest giver completes the quest and rewards you with various faction gains and losses (determined by the player as "good" or not) and a cowl that would vastly improve a thief type character. The massive extra coinage from robbing the cult blind could afford the player options to purchase items not available in other paths. Diplomatic Path = 20k xp for quest completion + 10k for convincing cultists to follow you + an entire faction at your beck and call (new quests/options later available) + Eye of the Forgotten God + quest reward (Robe of the Diplomatic Advisor) The diplomatic path would involve gathering information across the town concerning what the cult's habits/lives/history all are. Getting the history and finding out who the forgotten god actually is would require a fair amount of detective work on the players part. Only equipped with the right information could the player convince the cult leader that he/she is the avatar of the forgotten god. The Eye of the Forgotten God would be given to you (it's your artifact after all) and the cult would leave it's present location due to your command to do so. Going back to the quest giver gives the appropriate amount of xp and faction gain and loss but the quest giver does not accept the Eye of the Forgotten God (as it's proof of you being a "divine being"). The quest reward would be a Robe strongly tied to giving the equipped character buffs to non combat skills of the diplomatic variety (charisma and the like). It should be noted that the Eye could be a VERY powerful artifact. Evil Path = 30k xp for quest completion + 15k xp for killing cult leader + unique loot off cult leader + Eye of the Forgotten God + "cult tribute" to you + quest reward (evil armor + weapon of great power) Plays similarly to the diplomatic path but after taking the persona of the forgotten god you strike down the cult leader and take the cult over. The benefits listed above are very obvious with the exception of the tribute which might be a steady cash/goods flow to you through the rest of the game. You would not turn in the quest to the original quest giver but would instead turn it in to the now unsealed weapon + armor combo in the "office" of the cult leader. MASSIVE faction loss with the city/town you were questing in as well as other powerful factions you may not want to make enemies of. MASSIVE faction gain to certain evil factions. Certain parts of the game would probably be closed off though new and very evil parts may open. It's good to be bad... or is it? Now the real question. Which is the best path? Welcome to actual choice.

Hello Helm I see you've started your own personal battle vs. Sawyer (heh...). I find it somewhat funny that some see Josh's statement as an endorsement that he actually liked some parts. What exactly did he like? The combat? That's about the only thing he *didn't* list. Amazingly enough we had the IWD series which at least for the first one had a rambling Druid talking about the pains of "keeping the balance" and the like. I almost seem to fall asleep whenever he starts talking which is definitely an improvement over the dialogue in Baldur's Gate 1 . You'll have to forgive me Josh for not taking your word on what 'bad dialogue' might be. Well on the plus side i'm back, been sick for like a week and swamped for the rest of the second week. I'll be bumping the Degenerate Gameplay thread with an idea fueled ironically enough by Lephys and Hasat. I was just a little annoyed with Josh's non-choice example. What a lousy example. He listed like 90% of what made Baldur's Gate 2 the game it was (quest system, companions, story arc, dialogue choice... what's left exactly?). That's almost *all* the game systems in there. Little bit different then having a difference of "taste". Weak analogy. I'm sure you can do better. Yes you do. You going to try telling me you've never run into a sequel of a game that played *much* worse than it's predecessor because of "innovation"? I remember the first time I picked up Final Fantasy 8 after playing much of 7. The combat system couldn't have been much less balanced or tedious. I still hate that game to this day. Great game designers know when to pass on innovation as we have plenty of designers that will innovate despite any risk. Blizzard change their games overly much? No? Huh... I wonder why.

That's very single layer though. I will admit it's something I, as well as plenty of others, are very used to in our story telling. Rarely are stories happening concurrently and it's even rarer that we don't fundamentally understand every character in the story (usually because we take their perspective at some point). It's even somewhat rare to have good foreshadowing. The problem is when you run into a story that is effectively one that is multi-layered you quickly realize it's much better because it resembles the very world we live in. I've studied quite a bit about the Crusaders as research for something i've wanted to do for a very, very long time. Within the "dusty old historical texts" i've had to peruse I stumbled across many interesting things that I had never known before but one of them stood out to me. The creation of the indulgence which would later be implemented for centuries after... started here during the Crusaders. It altered how church was viewed for much of it's existence on the planet, it created false hope for so many people, it created oppression and stifled growth and it was the one act that would eventually spur internal rebellion within the church and forever change history. Yet, you would never simply guess the reason why it was brought about. The answer would shock you. Our world is horribly complex and if PE had a little more of that I certainly wouldn't complain. You certainly have a point about money. Obsidian only has so much of it which is why I left my "Yes" option as more of a "if they could fit it in" option. You've kind of got the general idea with the Fate/Stay Night reference. There would be "carry over" of your character though. It'd be like if Unlimited Blade Works was basically "Heavens Feel Part 1". Probably the best thing about the routes was that as you got to each subsequent route you learned more of the back story to the Fate/Stay world. Heavens Feel felt the most complete by far of all 3 of the routes. You make some good points at the same time though Obsidian pretty much has full control of their game without any publisher intervention. Might be the time to try a few new things. It doesn't have to be my idea though. @Fearabbit Thanks, it's nice to know people actually notice this stuff. There's actually quite a bit more to that archeological expedition btw. At times though it does feel like I could be spending my time somewhat fruitlessly *kicks xp pool idea off a nearby 50 floor building*. .../sigh For every good world built lies a story that is unsaid. The best worlds with "history" use that to their advantage. A masterpiece world is one that lets you in on it's secrets... and blows your mind in the process. I love great storytelling I really do. Once you taste a masterpiece you always want something a little more. It's like a drug and it never goes away. The only thing i'm really wondering right now is... can the developers of Obsidian Entertainment build a masterpiece?

I really didn't want to have to respond to this thread at like 4 in the morning but I will. @Hassat So you seem to want to know how I really feel Hassat. You're a jerk. I'm sitting at the starting line and you're already at the finish yet you come back to mock me. Why exactly? I've put 1000+ hours into the BG series and I let this one slip. Should tell you how very little control I have over my emotions right now. When combat xp becomes grindy then yes it becomes an mmo staple. Thankfully as the years have gone on it seems it started to shift to quests more then grinding. Though there are, of course, still some hold outs. Oh? I had no clue that people here had that stance and that BG 2s xp system was "really bad." Funny, I never had the trouble of not wanting to explore but it's okay Hassat they'll give you xp for that so you win anyways. You'll have your very own "carrot" whereas my "degenerate carrot" will be handily discarded. Congratulations. @Sacred_Path I see you have conveniently forgotten the part where we were trying to give meaning to killing stuff in the non-linear areas of Project Eternity but then again maybe i'm completely wrong about this game being non-linear in the first place. It really doesn't matter however, there will be one bounty hunt or two or whatever number Josh decides but one thing's for sure... there's no point addressing an issue that isn't there. It's okay Sacred_Path you'll get your wish as well there's no reason to try to goad me into anything. @Helm I know you're angry Helm, I know. It's been 22 pages of this and you've been there since the beginning yet the thread itself might as well be meaningless. If you feel even half "pain" I do then completely understand. It's been around something like a decade and a half since we've seen an IE based game. The word "hope" is the anchor we tie ourselves to as we abandon the Titanic... it's incredibly easy to drown. But regardless of what we feel or how angry we become it's not a good argument nor is it good character to drag someone's name through the mud. Lead Designer is not a position they hand to just everyone and although I don't know much of Sawyer's history i'm sure he's earned it and deserves it. We all want to be heard... all of us. Outright dismissing concerns of players I don't agree with does not sit well with me at all but taking the high road should be the only option. The low road gets nothing no respect, no allies, no trust... nothing. Get some rest man.. start fresh tomorrow. @PrimeJunta Regardless of why you did it... thanks. I'll break out my nostalgia bank sometime tomorrow.

@Sacred Path If you have to make an npc per monster type? A hell of a lot no? What happens when you're exploring the middle of a volcano? Is there going to be a hermit living in the middle of it who just so happens to have a bounty out for Lava Worms and requires Lava Worm tails? That's like textbook mmo. There's always an npc around right where you need them... ALWAYS. The *great* thing about Baldur's Gate 1 was that you *could* find the middle of nowhere and be in it. Ah hell.. what does it matter... why am I even arguing this? @Hassat And Baldur's Gate had a bounty quest before WoW did however there was only one. Bounty quests, exploration xp, fetch quests and other equally mundane easy and most importantly grindy ways to gain xp are the staples of mmos. If you have a ton of bounty quests and their givers in the game it becomes a staple of the game. Please try to understand the association of the two as I won't be posting on the matter again (though only because I won't have the will to). That really is a soul crushing statement both being called a doomsayer and the fact that Josh doesn't seem to care all that much about the issue. That really... really.... hurts.... That's a little much Helm. I thought at the very least you were a little more mature and it's not like I don't realize how impactful that statement is but you're going way overboard my friend. I don't want anyone to lose their job and I sure as hell don't want the game to fail miserably. I want it to destroy my love of the Baldur's Gate series and that's a damn high bar to be sure. You're something else TRX850 i'm barely sane at the moment to be honest. I'm glad you can always keep things on the upside. See you around. @Prime I told you you guys would win. I don't think this thread even registers on Josh's radar. I'd really like some of your optimism right about now. Ah hell who am I kidding i'll just live with my nightmares. I so want this game to bury the crappy rpgs of today and to trump even the greats. There's no way I would've pitched in as much as I did if I did not believe that. I want to believe.... I so, so, so, so want to believe....

If you just stand still for a bit, you'll regenerate. Luckily I found a potion of restore stamina. Currently imbibing. It also appears to have a mild Confusion effect though. You're good potatoes Prime. I've got nothing against you (you argue well and seem reasonable). Have a beer on the house *raises Dr. Pepper can and toasts monitor*. My apologies, I do owe you something though... I forgot to respond to it in my haste to get out the bloody door for work as I got called in (yet again!). I remember I read one of those in game books when I was playing Morrowind that told a story about an archaeologist who was doing a dig into one of the Dwemer ruins. It was a fascinating as hell read. The Endless Paths is supposed to be this giant mega dungeon with a known history behind it. It would be great if (for once) there was not say some arch demon at the very end of it and instead something cool and special for reaching the very end. Why are you (the player character) the only one interested in exploring the place? What if there was some resident archaeologist looking to explore the ruins in the game that then recruited your party as one of *many* to delve it's depths. You'd interact with a bunch of npcs that would establish a home base on a previous floor that you'd helped clear. You could have all kinds of crazy quests associated with your "dig team" and the npcs themselves would help open new areas on the floors (like slowly removing rubble in collapsed passages, etc.). You could hit roadblocks that essentially would require you to perform quests to help gather your dig team to help you get past say a flooded chamber or a colossal sentient mist that mind screws your party when you open the "do not open" door. So, so many ways you could run away with the idea. I even had the idea that the two mega cities we had would compete to become the one to fund the "dig" because The Endless Paths would've been a strategic stronghold between the two cities. You could support one city or the other or even fund the "dig" yourself. Anyways, i'll probably eventually create a thread on it someday. Oh and yes that would be developer resource intensive but I think it would be beyond worth it. @Helm Can't imagine why. Nothing here but us rabid backers. All things considered I really do want Josh to pop in and come up with some awesome objective based system that alleviates my fears. I took a look at the combat thread and it brought a smile to my face. I was a little worried with that "no miss" thing. @Lephys Dear God it hurts go easy on me Lephys! It's not so much that I don't appreciate that you realize that... concessions... would have to be made but that it's just really, really hard to imagine in an IE based game. Also some of the solutions to our various objective xp problems look like a leaning toward combat based xp. On the converse, some of the solutions to our combat xp based problems are a leaning toward objective based xp. It does make me wonder if there's a viable "middle ground" (hmm). At the same time, however, I do realize that the goals of both the xp systems tend to be entirely different and i'd say UpgrayeDD hit it on the head with the rewarding for combat or rewarding to get from point A to point B. THOSE are perhaps the things hard to reconcile. Take the BG series for example, I don't know about you but I noticed that there was a whole bunch of combat in it. Cloakwood, Gnoll Fortress (packed full of mobs), De'Arnise Hold, fighting off an entire army in ToB, etc. IWD had *hordes* of enemies (almost too many if you ask me). Does it really make sense to reward these huge encounters with xp at various "checkpoints" and why do it anyways (and where are said "checkpoints" while you wander a wilderness?) Is it to reward sneaky guys or pacifists? Why do these have to be equal paths? Bluffing your way past everything should have negative consequences just like killing everything and the kitchen sink should. Instead, I'd say greatly reward players for brokering alliances that would greatly help you in the future (as in MORE xp then a combat based option) or by not alerting or killing innocent guards on the way to steal a McGuffin. Players should *not* be rewarded for sneaking past everything or by roleplaying a coward. My sentiments exactly. I definitely think both sides are missing each other. Objective based xp system (to me) feels more forceful then a combat xp based one. As for exploration xp... why do we keep stealing lame mmo xp and quest systems to "add to" the spiritual successor of perhaps some of the best rpgs of all time? There just has to be a better way... there just has to.