Yonjuro

That's an interesting example. I think that separating them is what an intelligent character would try to do. So, according to me (and opinions may differ), in this case, kill XP and accomplishment/objective XP should work the same way. What are the examples where they should be different (possibly including the original example for those that disagree with me)?

This is a nice idea. The Alley of Dangerous Angles worked like this in PS:T. You could fight one or both groups, pay them to let you walk there or lead one faction into the other and let them kill each other (and maybe there were other solutions?).

See, same thing, except it's not limited-use like a spell. Sure, just so we're clear, that was the example of 'chance overriding challenge' in contrast to Stun's setup of Harm which was (player) skill overriding challenge. We agree on this point then. While we're here: I agree on point B. There are certainly non-binary spells (so to speak) that can have interesting combinations. Regarding point A, to a first approximation, Harm has no effect. Any creature for which it would make a difference will almost always make the save. It really isn't worth wasting slot on when you could have, e.g. Heal which will keep one of you characters from dying and will always succeed (unless the cast is interrupted, of course). On the other hand, it has interesting uses. Having a healthy mix of lower damage more likely to succeed abilities and higher damage less likely to succeed abilities seems like a good mix to me. Certainly there there is room for discussion about the damage numbers and probabilities. I would not rule out 'binary' things as uninteresting without knowing the particulars.

If it isn't, then could you provide me with an example of chance overriding challenge, and explain how the two scenarios are different? Sure. I once played BG2 as a solo Monk. For the Shadow Dragon and Firkraag I had some reasonable tactics in mind. The Shadow Dragon fight was hard. Unlike the Shadow Dragon, Firkraag died instantly from a quivering palm. Pure luck (also pure fun after the @#$%% Shadow Dragon nearly killing my PC), very unlikely to succeed; the only reason for trying it at all is because it's always there for a Monk. In Stun's play through, his stack of spells made his (otherwise crappy) Harm spell a sure thing. No luck involved and a clever use of available spells. My disagreement was with your characterization of this tactic as being similar to a cheat code. His tactic was a skillful use of what was available. But, more on that in moment: Nope. The argument is, some even-non-idiot can cast harm and have it work, not have to reload, and kill the dragon the following turn. Even if they didn't have any elaborate, scheming plan to make the dragon easy. They simply were offered the ability to take Harm, and invest in it, and they did. And then, luck happened. You might as well just put a button at the entrance to the cave, that, when pressed, MIGHT kill the dragon (or, in this case, reduce it to 1HP), and have it take 1-turn to press. That would be ridiculous, right? But, it's okay as long as it's an optional ability, for some reason. This is perfectly reasonable argument. Why have a 'Harm' spell in the game at all? Perhaps it shouldn't be there, but if we were going to debate that, a reasonable argument for why it should is: a. It's really kind of a crappy spell by itself. That is, the probability of success is low enough that the expected value of the spell is lower than many other spell of its level - I've never bothered with it for that reason. So, Harm does no harm (to the game). b. There may be a skillful way to use this otherwise crappy spell - in fact, we've seen an example of how a cleric/mage can use it. So, Harm adds something interesting to the game. tldr; The fact that Harm has an interesting use is an argument for having spells like that.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. That can be a hazard whenever art meets analysis. At a friend's house, I was offered an 'interesting single malt' (whisky, normally Scotch whisky). It had the flavors I would expect in a good Scotch whisky and no off flavors, but it tasted strange. It was made in Japan - and very well made. Whatever was wrong with it was very subtle. Somehow, though, it tasted like somebody designed the flavor to taste like Scotch whisky more than it tasted like actual Scotch whisky. As an analytically minded person (perhaps overly analytical at times), I took that as a cautionary tale in trying to design the perfect anything. So, here's hoping that PoE will capture the essence of my favorite IE games, only better - and - not feel like it was designed to approximate the feel of the IE games, sort of.

Sure, They will come up with something IE-like and I'm hopeful that it will be a great game with a lot pf replay value (and sequels that are equally good). For me, when I talk about the IE games, I really mean BG 1&2. I've played both of those games enough times that I can't remember the exact number. I've started both of the IWD games (more than once), but didn't find either of them compelling enough to finish even though they are similar on a lot of ways to BG and the individual encounters seemed to be well done. However, the stories were weak and the sense of exploration wasn't there. I think I enjoyed the humor of the BG games too. I'm really not sure why I like the BG games as much as I do, so I could see PoE being very much like the IE games but being different enough that they are missing an essential (for me) element. However, as much as I like BG, there is certainly room for improvement so, PoE might fix the shortcomings and keep most of the elements I like. Obsidian has the right people, will do a lot of play testing of their own and, I assume, will listen to feedback from beta testers, so there is reason to be optimistic about PoE. In any case, I'm very glad they're trying.

Yes. Nothing wrong with that. Yes. I agree that a character should be played in combat in a way consistent with their personality design. However, using a spell that a creature is immune to(or healed by, depending on which manual the stats were derived from) would be the action of an incredibly stupid character. Sort of like killing a fire elemental by using flame spells. It sounds like we are in vehement agreement about all of these points.

Yes. I think I would rather say that there is more than one good way to get the XP that you need (as well as play throughs that will succeed whether you hit the level cap or not), but I don't think we disagree on this. Sure, assuming two players accomplish the same set of quests, I would be fine with them having the same XP. I think there is a legitimate reason why several people in this thread disagree with me though (and why I might have a few concerns). Let's take BG2 as an example, specifically the stronghold quests you can get in chapter 2. Large parts of them could be skipped if you had enough invisibility potions (or spells) with you and didn't care about the XP or loot. So, if all you did was remove kill XP and replace it with objective XP, a player could, say, stroll through the Windspear Hills dungeon and only kill the orcs in the prison room, have a conversation with Firkraag and then go back upstairs and kill the mage in the prison room and they would be done. Of course, nobody will design exactly the same encounters and just swap out kill XP for objective XP - they will design encounters with objective XP in mind. However, that may give the encounters a very different feel than the encounters in the IE games. That is how I interpret these concerns. PoE will almost certainly be a well designed, well written game, but will it be similar to the IE games in the ways that matter to people? I think that is the concern with objective XP and all of the other differences that people have been concerned about. The differences may not matter or they may even make the game better than the IE games in every respect. That remains to be seen.

Yes. Sure. (Although, repeating the fight with a similar party will cause it to be relatively simple the second time. The challenge is in figuring out new ways to do it when the party has different capabilities.) Sure, but this was not a case of chance overriding challenge. It was taking a very low probability spell and turning it into a sure thing (no dice roll) by stacking it in just the right way with other spells (and also making good use of the capabilities of the cleric/mage multi-class). If the argument is: Some idiot can cast harm and then repeatedly reload and cast it again until the dragon dies - well so what? The idiot still proclaims himself a hero after an hour or so of doing this so no harm done (err, by the harm spell ... yes) and the rest of us are free to try more interesting things with it.

I disagree. It is the balance between the various ways of playing the game that is key to this discussion. Hang on, let's underline 'level cap' here. In BG1+TotSC, you would hit the XP cap (and similar arguments apply to a level cap) by doing the main quest, Durlag's Tower and little else. In addition, at every point in the game, there was enough XP to strategically level your party if that's what you wanted to do (e.g. the basilisk map with Korax the dire charmed ghoul that we discussed earlier in this thread). So, in the end (or, really, at any point in the middle), it really doesn't matter whether you chose option a or option b (or both) to solve a side quest. There is far more XP to go around than you can actually gain in a single play through. So, if someone chooses to be a 'degenerate' gamer they would only be making the game tedious for themselves, not unbalancing the game. OK, but the purpose is to avoid creating these scenarios because it is not good design. The scenario I mentioned in my previous post (the one referring to a non-objective system where the player chooses both the diplomatic and combat solutions) really does not make sense to do; you would be meta gaming in order to maximize your experience gains. I agree in principle that designing out some of these things could be a good idea. My real point here is: when something is just not interesting to do (like wandering around the wilderness throwing fireballs off screen to kill things for XP as someone mentioned earlier), why on earth would someone do that when they could get all of the XP they need doing something interesting? (That's why it matters whether there is a level or XP cap.) Yes it is fair to me (and I think you will agree). Let's use BG1 for an example again. You can choose where you will go and when and you can choose to leave some parts of the map completely unexplored. Of course, you will get more XP earlier by doing some of the harder maps first. If I wanted to powergame BG1 (which I usually don't) I would buy a protection from acid scroll and lot of healing potions and go kill all of the ankhegs with Imoen before picking up anyone else in the party. It's not the easiest way to play, but if I want XP early, it's doable. If I wanted an easier play through I would pick up Xzar and Monteron on the first map and then go to the FA inn to pick up Khalid and Jaheira. Doing things the second way, it will take a lot longer to level up than doing it the first way. How could it be otherwise when you have that much flexibility in a game? Exactly. I think we agree about this.

Lephys I find myself agreeing with you more often than not, but I have to vehemently disagree with you about this. That was a skillful combination of what the game gives you to work with. It's exactly the opposite of a cheat code. It's why these games are still interesting to play after you know the story. But Lephys is correct in this. That scenario is exploiting a loophole, as a Shadow Dragon is not only a powerful boss creature, but is also supposed to be immune to negative energy attacks(like Harm and Level Drain) as it is semi-undead*, as it is native to the Plane of Shadow. Just like a Monk being able to equip Keldorn's armor is a loophole, and wasn't intended as Monks are clearly prevented from wearing armor. Stun's post didn't say Shadow Dragon just 'a dragon'. Are you ok with his tactic if it one of the other dragons in BG2? Let's not confuse two different things. If it was the Shadow Dragon, and it was supposed to be immune to 'Harm' that's not a loophole, that's a bug just like the armor example you mentioned (which was fixed in the fix pack along with a bunch of other things that a monk wasn't supposed to use). Combining spells into useful stacks in accordance with the rules is skillful play - it is not exploiting anything unless there's a bug. I find that Baldur's Gate Trilogy is replayable not because there are loopholes that can be exploited, but because combat is fun and I can role-play a character I create. If you are roleplaying a Cleric/Mage, then using the abilities you have is part of roleplaying that character. Bashing a dragon with a hammer until one of you is dead because you think the designer intended it that way is not role play (unless you're role playing a less intelligent cleric/mage, which is fine). Do you agree ? I know it might be painful for you to agree with Stun, but let's not get ridiculous.

Lephys I find myself agreeing with you more often than not, but I have to vehemently disagree with you about this. That was a skillful combination of what the game gives you to work with. It's exactly the opposite of a cheat code. It's why these games are still interesting to play after you know the story.

I disagree. It is the balance between the various ways of playing the game that is key to this discussion. Hang on, let's underline 'level cap' here. In BG1+TotSC, you would hit the XP cap (and similar arguments apply to a level cap) by doing the main quest, Durlag's Tower and little else. In addition, at every point in the game, there was enough XP to strategically level your party if that's what you wanted to do (e.g. the basilisk map with Korax the dire charmed ghoul that we discussed earlier in this thread). So, in the end (or, really, at any point in the middle), it really doesn't matter whether you chose option a or option b (or both) to solve a side quest. There is far more XP to go around than you can actually gain in a single play through. So, if someone chooses to be a 'degenerate' gamer they would only be making the game tedious for themselves, not unbalancing the game.

I think the argument really boils down to something more like 'the IE games weren't broken so why is Obsidian trying to fix them by doing something significantly different?' True enough, but I was specifically referring to the "who's to say which kills/combats will grant XP and which ones won't?/ What if I HAVE to best something in combat merely to make any progress whatsoever in the game, but it doesn't get labeled as an objective?" argument. It's more an aspect of "the" argument, I suppose. Oh, I see. (Or, 'I have lost myself in your words but Boo thinks you're just ducky').

Nope. You're all caught up.

I think the argument really boils down to something more like 'the IE games weren't broken so why is Obsidian trying to fix them by doing something significantly different?' For the record, I'm optimistic that they will come up with something good, but I can see some of the concerns being raised about the mechanics as being legitimate concerns to have. In the end, it will depend on how the pieces fit together.

You're not necessarily killing them for XP. They are bandits, after all. They've been robbing everyone (and have killed at least twice that you know of), and will continue to do so if left alone. I've played as a paladin where I wiped out the camp, looted everything, rather than leave the items for more bandits to use, and donated the proceeds to the temple of Helm (well, I kept the full plate and the enchanted long bow - I was playing a paladin, not a saint). Well, the reasons I read suggested it was done for the XP alone. I think that people arguing for kill XP (that is, not me) are really arguing that: Wiping out the bandits makes sense from a story perspective and it is also more challenging than not wiping them out therefore the XP rewards should be higher. Agreed. If you're doing it purely for role play reasons, then you would do it anyway. There are lots of examples where XP and role play are not aligned, e.g. I wouldn't kill Adalon in BG2 if I was playing a good character.

Hmm, maybe. It would depend on how much of a bonus it was and how efficiency was measured. That is, if it were possible to (mostly) factor out the luck of the draw from the bonus calculation, then there wouldn't be much point in redoing an encounter unless you genuinely figured out a better way to do it.

You're not necessarily killing them for XP. They are bandits, after all. They've been robbing everyone (and have killed at least twice that you know of), and will continue to do so if left alone. I've played as a paladin where I wiped out the camp, looted everything, rather than leave the items for more bandits to use, and donated the proceeds to the temple of Helm (well, I kept the full plate and the enchanted long bow - I was playing a paladin, not a saint).

Yup, agreed, it's two objectives. I suppose an XP reward for being imaginative is almost impossible to do in a CRPG, but something like efficiency might be almost as good - e.g. if you wiped out the bandit camp with, say, 5 traps and a skeleton instead of 100 traps, 20 skeletons and with two party members killed you might get more XP for the former case.

Then the solution is to eliminate respawns. NOT to do away with combat xp! Sheesh. Well, that's one solution and, in some cases, maybe a good solution, but, if you did away with respawns, you might make the blunder + rest spam option as viable as the fight intelligently option.

No, I would not agree that this is degenerate gameplay. At all. And if I was DMing a situation like this in Pen & Paper, and my players were shrewd enough to infiltrate the camp and then secretly turn it into a trap-filled abyss as a goodbye gesture against the very bandits who've been terrorizing the sword coast, and they successfully pulled it all off, I would not only award them XP for every kill, I'd give them BONUS xp for being so stylish about it. Fair enough (and well put) - I'm not sure I agree that it is deserving of extra XP, but I see your point. That said, if you were designing the bandit camp encounter, an objective based XP system would allow you to do exactly what you've suggested. Is it fair to say that, in an objective XP-only system, you would be fine with the bandit camp encounter if it worked that way? That's true, but I have done that in the final fight of the game (because, you know, If I can't walk in the center of the room, NO ONE can ), so I don't feel too bad about the omission here. (EDIT: I should clarify that what I considered the 'degenerate' part is the rest 100 times to set traps. I like traps as much as anyone (and I like summoning hoards of monsters even more than most) - I just don't think I would have much fun setting 100 traps with a thief that can only set one between rest periods. )

I don't think it is safe to say that they will be no different. See my example in post 90 in this thread. This encounter could work the same way - you could get XP for doing whatever you did in that area, but you wouldn't get extra XP for exploiting respawns or some other feature of the map intended to make it more challenging (which, arguably, could be described as degenerate gameplay).

Indeed. BG1's bandit camp quest is a good example of...well... just about everythng we've been talking about here. And I think Josh would call killing the leader of the black talons (to get his armor and the 2000 xp that he's worth) when the quest/storyline doesn't require it Degenerate Gameplay. So of course, such behavior must be stamped out/discouraged at all costs. Including fun, and player freedom. I won't speak for Mr. Sawyer, but would be interested in his take on this example. My take on it is: Suppose you had quest XP in BG1 in addition to kill XP and you offer to join the bandits to solve the quest that way. You can then freely wander the bandit camp for as long as you like (except for Tazok's tent - at least, I think it might work that way; I've always just killed everyone). So, let's have Imoen set a thief trap. Then we'll rest. Repeat about 100 times and carpet the area with traps. Now solve the quest and then shoot an arrow at someone outside. Everyone instantly dies from the traps. I think most of us would agree - degenerate gameplay but it does give you extra XP, so it might be tempting for a powergamer. EDIT: Whoops, I forgot to summon a hoard of monsters before shooting the arrow. How embarrassing.

I know. I get the argument. The problem is that there's no difference between directly getting XP for your kills, and directly getting XP for kills because "killing things was the objective". It's literally the same thing. Any time there is combat, killing will be one of the objectives. So.... why did Tim Cain feel the need to tell us that the game will not reward you for your body count? Was he just trying to put a spin on things for marketing sake? There can be a difference. Here's an example: To keep the example simple, suppose a quest is to retrieve an item from an area. Also suppose that the only way to do this is to go to the area, kill everything and take the item because, say, the enemy density is too high to use stealth and they aren't willing to negotiate with you. So, degenerate play number one: blunder in and attack, when someone in your party gets too low on hit points run away (presumably reloading if they die), rest until healed. Repeat. The above won't work if enemies respawn, leading us to degenerate play number two: Similar to number one, but keep blundering in and killing things until you hit the level cap. With accomplishment/objective based XP, you can still get the same amount of XP for doing the quest, but you would be rewarded for using reasonable tactics (not having to repeat the same fight ad nauseum) and not rewarded for XP farming (by doing exactly that). Essentially, the encounter designer can give you XP for the kills but, only once, in order to encourage you to up your game w.r.t to tactics.