TRX850

I just realised the irony of this thread and others like it. We've re-enacted a modern day version of Baldur's Gate NPCs, all taunting and jibing and strutting about, and to my delight, some friendly banter also. History repeating? Well, I thought it was ironic.

I am offended that you are stating that anyone who has a pet cat is a degenerate furry fetishist. I see tabloid journalism is not dead.

Hassat, we're all good guys here really. And while I do enjoy a healthy debate, I think it's time to reel this one in mate. As useful as these forums are, there's still a lot of confusion over these big issues, and I'd rather just discuss other aspects of the game with you guys in a lighthearted and ironic manner, and see what the devs provide in the next few updates. I was thinking though, it'd be really interesting, and funny (and dangerous!) if we rounded up the "Usual Suspects" on these forums and were thrown into our own P:E "Think Tank". Office space with whiteboards and game rigs and PnP stuff and just go crazy for a month with ideas. Maybe a bit like OE, but without any restrictions. That would be strange days indeed.

What for? Extra mouths to feed that bring no utility to what has officially been stated to be a combat-centric game? Do you want to bugger them? Or to kill them? I don't recall anyone at Obsidian announcing that P:E would be a child-rearing simulation. Human Sacrifice? Send them out as scouts.

There's a reason Challenge Ratings are used to define enemies though. A single dragon will undoubtedly have a much higher CR than each orc. And therefore there's a much higher risk of death, but a much higher reward if you defeat it. Orcs provide a much lower risk of death, and a lower reward for defeating one. The fact that you killed 100 orcs and received the same XP as killing a single dragon reflects the risk/reward element. Now if you were to go out and kill 100 dragons on the other hand...

Because each time you defeat an orc, you're reducing the overall threat just a little bit. Doesn't matter whether you're a wizard, cipher, fighter, or rogue. The threat has been reduced. You can't kill half a dragon and claim the same thing. An enemy removed from the battlefield reduces the overall threat, whether it's a single opponent, or one of many.

It seems like this year we are in a position to redefine what it means to "earn a reward". Some players think it should be decided in different ways and larger chunks than others. I agree there needs to be some clamping down on giving away "unearned" rewards. That's what we're really talking about here. And I'm pretty sure we all want the same thing in the end, and feel the joy at having earned that magic weapon, or those boots of speed, or that awesome new combat maneuver, or a new spell level. Progression is what keeps us interested. I just don't want to lose that old school IE sense of progression to a new system that deals out XP in wider intervals that coerces me to play a certain way. If anything, it seems to have the opposite effect of allowing choice. Edit: If there were exploration XP rewards dotted about all over the place, you'd be encouraging players to trigger them all without engaging in the related quest. So it still seems like this method is open to degenerate behaviour.

If I kill half the orcs, but have to retreat wounded, and head back to town to heal up, and some lady wants her basement cleared of rats, and some girl wants her cat rescued from a tree, (oh and btw, I'm a cat person too, so nothing against the furry fellas), and some assassin ambushes me and I'm forced to fight, then the XP I would have gotten from killing half the orcs might mean the difference between levelling up and not levelling up before the assassin was part of the equation. I'm not advocating that combat is the only play style that counts, it's just easier to use combat in the example given. Take the above example, but this time I'm a rogue who wants nothing to do with fighting (it's such a dirty habit!) I sneak past half the orcs, but dang, I'm discovered! I stab one in the bollocks before running away back to town, angry with myself at being spotted (and having sullied my dagger with orc bollocks), then some crazy assassin picks a fight with me and I'm forced to deal with him. But wait, I didn't get any XP for sneaking past 50 orcs because the quest trigger wasn't triggered at exactly the right spot. And I agree that it's always going to be troublesome trying to quantify a good stealth reward. What if, on the other hand, that while I was sneaking past those first 50 orcs, I encountered a few deadly traps and was able to disarm them, and I picked a few locked chests while they were standing *right next to me*, but that wasn't enough to gain any XP before heading back to town. I just know there is a way to combine both of these reward schemes without the perception that you're being duped. I just don't think we've seen any examples that are absolutely clear, because, well, it's too complicated to take every adventuring factor into account when we don't really know what we're getting.

What is penalising you from your playstyle if it stays EXACTLY the same. But there are 2 variations added for other people?Wouldn't it be very egoistic to claim your playstyle needs to become prefered? What exactly is endangering you from using your playstyle if you like it most if 2 others are in you like less, and hence don't use? Enlighten me... You'd still get more XP, since you don't have to share your XP amongst the group. And get the full XP of your playstyle (it's not like you get less XP for being a fighter, that would be unfair). Basically what you're saying is "if I am a fighter, I want more XP than the rogue and diplomat." But this game is made for more playstyles than just your fighter, so (sadly for you) that wont happen. No, it isn't.Stealth players can stealth. And have stealth skills and options and questpaths do so. Fighters can fight. And have fighting skills and options and questpaths to do so. Diplomats can work things out. And have diplomat skills and options and questpaths to do so. Why is any of them watered down if all are viable? Why does the fighter need to be more viable for the system to work (it wouldn't be better...). Why is supporting proper stealth and diplomacy unlike the IE games inherrently making fighters watered down? I need some reasons, since honestly, I don't understand them... In my own home, where I live, with my computer, and the RPG game I just bought, I am engaged in a playthrough as a solo fighter. In this playthrough, my preferred adventuring style is combat heavy. I've decided that on this playthrough, I'm not too bothered about sneaking or talking my way out of trouble. In this playthrough, I've decided I want to front up and pummel the living crap out of any bad guy in between me and the end game. So in this playthrough, combat is the preferred play style. If I kill a hundred orcs in their filthy little orc camp, I want XP for 100 orcs, not 75% of the XP or some arbitrary value based on completing that quest. See? Now if I teamed up with a rogue on another playthrough, she would handle lockpicking, trapfinding, diplomacy maybe, and definitely all the backstabbing. The play style for my fighter is still combat heavy, and every time I kill something, the party shares in 100% of that kill XP. Every time the rogue averts disaster by disarming a trap, or some pretty fast talking that means all the difference in the upcoming battle, we'd also share 100% of those XP rewards. The rogue isn't punished because someone else in the party has a different play style to hers. She can still stand shoulder to shoulder with me and fight like a champ, and again, we'd share 100% of the kill XP. This is the way I see it working, which is by and large, how it used to work. Again, if I'm put in a situation where my party's fighter is denied XP for additional kills during a quest, then I call BS. Same thing if my rogue is denied XP for backstabbing some hobgoblin shmuck who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Where is my XP? I agree it *is* possible to have the best of both worlds, or however many worlds we're talking about here. Some of the earlier Quest-XP examples from different people may have been confusing, but please, let's be clear, killing 100 orcs should equal 100% of the XP, and not some watered down % because it wasn't *exactly* part of the current quest.

Actually it doesn't work "just fine". Face it - objective-based XP is simpler to implement, more fair to everyone and easier to balance To be fair, when I started playing D&D back in the early 80s, we never got XP for killing a monster (*rolls hit* "I hit the monster" "Okay, add 100 xp to your character sheet and tell me if you level up"). We waited for the battle to be over or for the night to be over before the DM calculated XP for the combat, the quest or the night. So part of why I'm not terribly beholden to kill XP is that my P&P background was never hinged on it. People who've only played computer games might have a different experience. But then the first computer games I played - like SSI's Phantasie were "all or nothing" propositions. Get into a fight and kill a couple of monsters but have to run away? Too bad - no XP for you. So the idea that the only way to do a game is to dole out XP every time the player opens a lock, kills a monster, lances a bunion or whatever just isn't there for me. Not that I hate it either; different systems bring their own pluses and minuses and can be equally fun to play. That's how we'd also play sometimes. The crucial difference is that we had a DM who would gently keep us on track with the current quest so we didn't stray. In a computer game where players tend to rail against linear design, it means you don't *have* to stick to linear quest completion. You could accept half a dozen quests in town, and do a little bit of one, more in another one, wander across to the edge of the map (continent), accept a few more quests, accidentally kill a plot based character because he was "looking at you funny" and so on and so forth. Yes, it would be "cleaner" if you just stuck to your quests like a good little adventurer, but for many many legitimate reasons (you're playing evil, or have a God complex, or some other roleplaying theme) any quest can be broken at any time. You can of course go back to a quest later, but if your reputation has altered things, or you've managed to unknowingly complete parts of other quests, but not in a way the quest-giver wanted, then there are just too many ways to break Quest-XP as the core reward system. Now you might say, 'no one in their right mind would do all that stuff I described above' ^^, and I would like to think that were true, but you should never underestimate a player's desire to be creative/different/idiotic/weird or menial in their own game. If they do sway from the quests, but are still adventuring and discovering things and defeating "enemies", then that's not a good reason to remove their XP rewards. It's simply not the same as PnP. Which is a damn shame.

If you just stand still for a bit, you'll regenerate.

Crit-tastic. No need to wrap 'em. I'll take 'em as they are.

Because you are now penalized by the inclusion of other play styles encroaching on your preferred play style. If I want to play a solo fighter from start to finish, why should I be awarded less that 100% of the kills? In trying to normalize all play styles, it in effect waters down all of them. Which is unacceptable.

Not sure I see the logic in awarding XP for stumbling upon a windmill. I think the XP triggers need to be narrowed down a bit in this example. But your comment about dungeons.....isn't that how it's currently done? You clear out a level of monsters and gain XP as you go? We've somehow managed to stumble past the windmill and back to square one again.

I'm not exactly sure. All I know is there's cake!

Caaaaaaaake! Cake for everyone! Come and get your caaaaaaaake!

I have never played Vampire: Bloodlines.

I'm going to assume you have little experience with OE. Or RPG's in general. Quests aren't simple "give X to Y", they allow multiple paths, solutions. If you discover the quest giver is the enemy, and you kill him... congrats... Quest completed. I'm not sure why you think OE is such a newbie gamedev that this would instead lead to a quest failure and no reward. I gave that example because in traditional IE games, the quest-giver tends to remain neutral throughout. And since they've discussed using a dynamic reputation system in place of alignment, I actually thought the devs might take advantage of that and allow the party reputation to dynamically affect everyone in the game, including the quest-giver. But I see your point. They would still anticipate quest-giver-death as one possible outcome and adjust the quest and reward potential accordingly. So I stand corrected.

I wasn't suggesting XP for every tiny interaction. Just the choices or skill checks that avert non-trivial threats or gain non-trivial items/info. And of course combat XP. And I think people are assuming way too much when they suggest that other roleplaying elements would be boring or no fun. If there's a design element that has no purpose in the game, then that's one thing. If it's a design element that allows you to roleplay, well then, roleplay. It's what the RP in RPG stands for.

That's a fair design consideration. I sure hope no one wants to disincentivize optional objectives now, because shock, horror! they might reward additional XP.

If you are awarded the XP when you unlock the door, there's no problem. As long as you don't get the XP when you find the key. That's a simple design issue. If you are a successful diplomat, AND and cold blooded killer, then why wouldn't you receive kill XP? Your reputation will take a hit. There's the trade-off. Again, a simple design issue. I just don't see any attraction in "bullying" a player out of XP, when they have the right to any play style they want. Some of you play the cold blooded killer sometimes, no doubt. People are turning a design issue into a moral one. At least in some examples anyway. Which is bad bad bad bad bad.

If the quest had a "time is money" factor, and rewarded efficiency, that's a fair reward. But I don't want to be punished if I did it in a way that maximized my combat and skill ability and cleaned the place up in the process. As far as I'm concerned, I achieved the quest, and then some. I should be rewarded even more for my initiative and thoroughness.

Er, no. This is exactly the thing I don't want to see in an RPG. Ever. I want to behave as I choose in my own game, thankyou. I look forward to the first "Let's Play P:E" YouTube series that isn't nerfed by "balance monkeys" interfering with a player's behaviour.

Why is it so wrong for a player to do whatever the hell he/she wants in their own game? If this was an MMO, then I agree on the zero tolerance of exploitation. I honestly can't remember who is in favour of quest-only XP, who isn't, who doesn't give a rats, and who is wiping their own poo in their hair. What is the obsession with punishing someone who wants OPTIONS to play the game they paid for, the way they want to play it? If they just so happen to choose a path that the devs think is the most exciting, then good for them. Sometimes, after a player gets to know the game, they want to go into overdrive, or underdrive, or just-plain-weird-drive. Let them. IE games are pretty flexible in how you design characters and choose skills and feats and spells. Why the hell can't it be flexible when it comes to powergaming or weirdgaming? If I choose to powergame on a playthrough, are you gonna come round my house and tut tut behind me because I've optimized everything and my character levels are higher than yours? Sweet Jumping Jesus.

That is *precisely* why it's the smart thing to do for a player who wants to maximize his character(s) development via XP. I sincerely believe you have our long term enjoyment in mind. I really believe that. But you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to normalize everything. If a player wants an advantage by *doing everything* then let them. Don't punish them. I keep saying this yet people are determined to use the word "balance" as justification to penalize a type of play style that will ultimately NOT AFFECT THEIR OWN GAME.