Gromnir

Good advice and much more thorough than what I was prepared to write. However I am giving Obsidian the benefit of the doubt and am suspecting that they are aspiring for the depth and complexity of PS:T when it comes to interactivity. Afterall, I did back this game (and not for an unsubstantial amount of scratch) with the strong belief that Obsidian is going to deliver on their product based on their pedigree and strength of their back catalog. oh, we have same/similar hopes. even when Gromnir has been disappointed by obsidian, we believes they has attempted to achieve interactivity that is beyond what is typical o' virtual any other popular developer o' crpgs today. we may criticize individual obsidian developers and writers, but as a group, we feel they is kinda the benchmark for story-driven crpgs that try to balance in interactivity. though we haven't actual purchased their last couple releases... HA! Good Fun!

*groan* am trying to be patient. am not sure what you is tying to achieve with what you think is insightful but is clearly misguided quotes. you will be able to sneak and diplomacy your way past many obstacles and achieve success in may quests. the obsidians don't need tally and balance the weight o' the value o' those skills because all successfully completed quests, regardless o' your solution, will achieve equal payoff. am not certain how to make this any more simple or clear. as to helm: "If you guys hate combat XP so much, then why did you back the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate that Obsidian promised us? " we will get plenty o' experience for combat, but it will be exactly the same amount o' experience as we get if we snuck past all the spiders and then tricked the ogre through dialogue. ​we all get to be wieners. yay! sart: "Are you saying that for every playthrough of BG2 you always killed every creature you encountered in every instance, always?" and you complain about strawman? *chuckle* that being said, especial if we were close to leveling, we would be more inclined to search out a mob to kill just for the experience Points and not 'cause the experience o' combat were fun. thanks for helping illustrate that point even if it ain't what you were hoping to reveal. "Hopefully that apocalypse of horrible game design will not come to pass. As it stands I am not convinced. I'm worried." dear lord. you didn't go there, did you? HA! HA! Good Fun!

it will never be time to bake bread in PoE. hopefully that doesn't ruin the game for you. from the beta, Gromnir is uncertain o' the depth o' reactivity. like all the ie games which PoE professes to be attempting to re-imagine, the games are squad-based tactical combat games with role-play elements. the role-play aspects should be stressed more in PoE than in bg, but to what degree... am not yet certain. recent obsidian games place far greater importance on the dialogues between companion characters and the protagonist than you ever saw in the fallout games, so if that is a positive, you should be pleased. if you are annoyed by needy and noisy companions, then perhaps PoE is the wrong game. the game environment is technically and artistically more than a decade advanced from the last of the ie games, but it is still 2d. interactivity will have limitations. given that it is a 2d environment, some o' these limitations will be addressed via dialogue cutscenes that make stat checks to see if a character may successfully swim across a river or climb a wall or... whatever. the solution to 2d that obsidian has chosen strikes us as rather clever approach. it is worth watching some of the game demos floating around the internet to get a better idea of how characters will be able to interact with the game environment in a rather atypical ie game fashion. am suspecting the game will be story-driven degree, but am getting the impression it will be less so than ps:t... we don't have anything concrete to base that 'pon. have seen very little story in the beta so far. you have time. game won't be out for many months and there will be increasing fan and press previews and demos. HA! Good Fun!

Ok. I'll answer both your questions. Your argument was that the system awards all playstyles. It does not. You cannot solve any quest in the beta by sneaking, for example. When this was pointed out to you bluntly and clearly, you decided to redefine 'sneaking' so that it fits within the definition of another playstyle entirely (talking), and then you proceeded to call people 'silly" and "obtuse" for not "realizing" that the sneaky playstyle is rewarded. see, now That is strawman... please point out to sart as he is confused about strawman. we stated that the developers does indeed try to make all builds viable, but that does not necessarily follow that every obstacle will be surmountable via sneaky or diplomacy or every single skill available. we said that quest xp means that the developers does not need ask how players chose to accomplish goals-- the choice is left up to players, and xp awards do not favor any singular approach. there is no best xp build. there is no right or wrong approach. "PoE is a role-play game that allows sneaky and diplomatic. give xp awards for individual kills, and individual lockpicks and individual whatever inevitably leads to an ideal approach for maximizing xp by making the right gameplay and character development choices. quest only xp avoids the need to devise a fair an balanced calculus. quest is simple and guaranteed to result in every player getting exact same XP rewards for completing quests regardless o' how they chose to complete the quest. "you don't wanna play a role-play game that offers choices? then go play an rts game." HA! Good Fun! ps am thinking you don't fully realize that your example is precisely why quest xp is a superior approach. how does developers properly award stealthy gameplay? what numbers resolutions may be provided to balance with combat? yea, our stealth guy might be able to sneak past all spiders and then outwith the ogre, but how does we proper award xp so is similar to the combat player?with quest xp it is a non-issue. is no problem that needs be confronted as there is no balancing being faced by the developers. players can be creative and find their own solutions and developers need not worry 'bout providing relative satisfactory exp awards.

"But that is because the entire premise is based on a fallacy that I tried to point out to you. No one is cheating you in a game if you choose to play in a way that would give you somewhat less xp as long as that playstyle is still fun." is not a fallacy. if Gromnir is certain that by choosing a certain play style we is gimping ourself out of significant xp or usefulness or whatever, we will be disinclined to play such a build. you are making an assumption. josh also has observed that while fallout allowed near limitless gameplay builds using special, only a handful ever got widespread use. in spite o' the potential for fun, the reality is that there were only a handful o' builds that were efficacious enough to merit playing. is unlikely Gromnir is alone in his resistance to self handicapping, and while we don't know where josh and other black isle/obsidian folks got his feedback, his fallout observations seem to reinforce our belief. and keep in mind that josh is not the Sole Arbiter o' all things PoE. seems a bit silly to suggest that this is josh's choice and everybody else at obsdian is meekly following along. "That playstyle was fun in the IE games. I still play them like that to this day. Once Sawyer got the reigns of complete creative control he chose to implement the systems he prefers not necessarily (that is the key word here because there are people on both sides of this argument) the systems that his players would prefer" another unsupported assumption? many folks, such as Gromnir, felt that the ie system o' xp awards (we mentioned the silliness o' stockpiling scrolls to memorize for massive xp awards) were horribly broken. we could enjoy bg (not so much) or bg2 without approving of the xp award system. furthermore, let us be honest about the ie games (sans iwd2.) ad&d rules and the infinity engine approach to actualizing ad&d made it much more difficult to build a diplomatic or stealthy character. you are setting up a false choice. thank goodness we ain't stuck with mechanics as limited as we had in bg and bg2. if all we had were horrible ad&d, then perhaps you would have at least more o' a point. regardless, you still fail to answer our challenge. is a simple truism that obsidian has a goal o' making all builds if not equally powerful, then at least equal viable and hopefully equally fun. so, "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." you do not see such a goal as worthy? very well, we already stated much earlier that we were at an impasse because o' this. nevertheless, the goal is to provide juice per squeeze for every build. that is a given. so, provide a xp system that provides equal xp that is as easy to implement. am still waiting. "I intend to make sure that Josh knows that this design decision will probably negatively contribute to many peoples enjoyment of this game." ​the codexian grognards came out o' the woodwork during bg3 development and fo3 as well. am finding particularly amusing that this time it is post beta that we is seeing vocal resistance from a the intransigent few. is kinda amusing timing. good luck though. HA! Good Fun!

should make these part o' our signature for the time being: 1) "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." 2) http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494610 is gauche to quote self, but what can we do if we don't get actual responses? HA! Good Fun!

keep going. makes you seem so much more enlightened. the relevant aspect o' our observation were that we dealt with the ogre without violence, without killing. you want to quibble over the fact that Gromnir used a denotative correct descriptor that you felt were ultimately misleading? ... why? ... what difference would it make if we solved through stealth or deception or diplomacy if we were contrasting with combat? please, continue. HA! Good Fun!

"sneaky" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneaky we lied. we were deceptive. we were sneaky. Uh-uh. no, sorry. In a game where Lying/Deception use different skill/attribute checks than Stealth, you cannot group them together as one and claim that they both constitute "sneak" we were cautioned about being rude to you in spite o' you getting sweary and silly... but you make difficult. we said, "our first encounter with the ogre in the caves were solved diplomatically... or sneaky, depending on how you look at it. should we have been robbed of all xp for quest completion because we chose to complete quest other than through violence?" now, explain what is wrong with our observation. you ASSumed that by sneaky we meant stealth. that was an incorrect ASSumption, the fallacy o' the ASSumption made all the more obvious by the fact that we observed initial that our solution were diplomatic. we then added that depending on how one looked at the situation, our solution were in fact sneaky. we used deception. we were not genuine diplomatic but were sneaky and deceptive. you ASSumed and is making a big issue outta nothing. congrats. HA! Good Fun!

That would be a fantastic rebuttal, if it wasn't for the fact that the Originals of all those titles also granted combat XP. (Especially dungeon siege 1 & 2, which did not grant XP for anything BUT combat) that is the freaking point. dear lord... save us. obsidian made expansions. the original games had a formula and were popular enough to warrant an expansion. obsidian were getting paid to Expand the original game, games which gave combat xp. is not as if obsidian were working from scratch to build the bestest crpg the could. they followed the formula, the script. that were their job. have entered the twilight zone. HA! Good Fun!

What do you mean, sneaky? You can't solve the Ogre quest by stealth in any way. Thus, one who role-plays a sneaky character is shut out from XP/quest rewards in that quest unless he changes his style of game play. "sneaky" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneaky we lied. we were deceptive. we were sneaky. we will keep bringing up 2 points: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494610 obsidian has clear stated that they is making a game w/o a right or best build. give a build with best xp award is counter-productive. also, "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." should be an easy task if you want achieved in relative limited time 'tween now and eventual release. HA! Good Fun!

"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?" Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect. Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed: KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills. In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest. I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then? The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well? it might be worth noting that all games you mentioned other than ap, which weren't genuine a rpg anyway, is expansions... and you really don't know what is straw man. it did occur to you that expansions might be forcing limitations on the developer o' the expansion seeing as how it ain't obsidian's licence or ip? *eye roll* is not your fault you weren't here for bg3 or fo3, so you didn't get the full arguments from the bis and obsidian developers, but this is one topic where you simple couldn't be more wrong if you tried. josh, in particular, were brutal with the ad hoc proponents. this game has also been in development for more than simple the week the beta has been available and the obsidians no doubt reexamined the quest xp issue during development. so, again, "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." still no adequate response. surprised? no. HA! Good Fun! ps 'cause maybe missed, but there seems to be great misunderstanding 'bout xp awards for d&d pnp at the time o' the ie games http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494840

actually, particularly as you is in the backer beta section, the observation that Obsidian Has Already Made Their Decision is quite compelling. the likelihood that suddenly obsidian will reverse course, give numerical xp kill values for every critter and attempt to similar provide balanced diplomacy, sneak, lockpick awards while making sure to avoid all the potential exploits that come with such awards is seeming a bit fanciful. if you wanna scroll up the board to Obsidian General and look for Computer and Console, you may have a more appropriate venue for discussing theoretical best approaches for games not yet in development. this bird is pretty much cooked. HA! Good Fun!

is some more funny ad&d quirks btw... and all ie games were ad&d "Experience is the measure of a character’s ability in his or her chosen profession, the character’s class. Each player character begins the campaign at 1st level with no experience points accumulated. Thereafter, as he or she completes adventures and returns to an established base of operations, the Dungeon Master will award experience points to the character for treasure gained and opponents captured or slain and for solving or overcoming problems through professional means." so exp comes from loot, kills and professional skill use, and as we saw above, were awarded after adventures. furthermore, ad&d added the dreaded training requirement to actual level. regardless o' how much xp gained during an adventure, you never actual could level-up during an adventure as training were essential to transform experience into skill/levels. according to ad&d, characters were required to spend 1-4 weeks in training to translate adventure experience into leveling experience... and depending on how well the player performed in the adventure, training time might be extended or diminished. training were also very expensive. 2nd edition modified leveling rules a bit, but am admitting we largely ignored 2nd edition changes. that being said, 2nd edition did stress that xp were awarded “for victory over their foes, which is not necessarily synonymous with killing." anywho... none o' this makes much difference even if it does kill notion that murdering critters is necessarily the basis o' d&d xp awards at the times the ie games were made. is also further clarifying that xp were given at conclusion o' adventures. regardless, none has chosen to take up the challenge: "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." HA! Good Fun! ps correction: iwd2 were 3e, not ad&d. our bad

It's not my job to come up with a solution, but seeing as previous RPG systems which continually thrive due to offering what most people here seem to want, seems common sense to use a known and revered system. if you can't come up with a better solution, that what on earth would motivate obsidian to change? ... this can't be mystifying to so many, can it? HA! Good Fun!

you is going to need point out you solution, 'cause we saw partial, which made no sense, so please illuminate. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494553 we did see some nonsense whereby you wanted to give xp based on passage o' game time? were that genuine serious? surely you can see problems, yes? HA! Good Fun!

"You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine." and how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun? quest/task avoids such balancing. and around we go. serious. is 2002 all over again and nothing new is spontaneously appearing. *shrug* doesn't matter though regardless o' what you think o' Gromnir pov, obsidian/bis has disagreed with you for a decade or more, and they disagreed all during development o' PoE. is yet another corpse on the pile o' would-be ad hoc xp proponents. is getting a bit fetid, but we expect the corpse pile will continue to grow. HA! Good Fun!

Actually, i gave you your desire pages ago. Grant XP for time passed, which is both easy to implement, simple and straightforward, and completely independent of any playstyle because it has no connection whatsoever to what the player does. Which is the only way to grant XP independent of playstyle at all. actually, you didn't. you did make a vague comment about rewarding for partial steps, but that doesn't solve anything and sure isn't illuminating. how balance partial steps if you diplomacy, sneak and kill... or some other complete unexpected manner. where is partial steps measured and how. how is those partial steps balanced against each other. and why on earth does those incremental steps matter? seriously folks. quest task is simple/straightforward and infallible. everybody gets same xp for completion. given that obsidian believes alternative play styles should be rewarded equal and should be encouraged, come up with a better solution. *shakes head sadly* this is not complex, or confusing. not even a little. HA! Good Fun!

Who cares if it alleviates balance problems? Obsidian guys where payed to make a game for a reason. I don't like these post, whose only point is well it's easier to balance. Well kill xp is more fun, which do you think will matter more to the players fun or balance? time and effort not spent on mythical balancing algorithms that satisfy players regardless o' their play styles can be spent on far more important aspects o' game development. quest/task xp awards is so incredibly straightforward and fair that in spite o' more than a decade o' these interminably repetitive complaints, nobody has ever offered a superior solution that is remotely as simple to implement. timmy doesn't get a gold star for killing each spider. instead he must needs wait and defeat the ogre boss. that is the great sin o' quest xp? and what would be the cost o' giving you your figurative ego lending? how much effort woulds need go towards making sure that the sneakier or more diplomatic players received similar/same experience. this is classic gordian knot situation. is a simple and obvious solution to what people imagines into a problem. answer the challenge... or not. HA! Good Fun!

I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares? the developers do. many players do. those who wish for more replay-ability do. nevertheless, if that is your pov, we understand the impasse. you do not see inherent value in players choosing different approaches but getting same/similar xp value. the developers disagree wholeheartedly with you and thus they have chosen a method that guarantees equal xp to all players regardless o' how they solve a quest. why should kill ogre get xp, but trick ogre get nothing? why should a character who specializes in unlocking every chest get loot AND more xp than a person who don't have a dedicated lockpicker? etc. you don't have a problem with the disparity. thus ends common ground and we will make no headway. thankfully, obsidian sees value in balance xp awards. lump sums is how old pnp did it. you is still being rewarded for killing stuff by getting your xp award, but you feel slighted 'cause sneaky and diplomats is getting same lump sum? why? so, given that obsidian is making game and has stated innumerable times they don't want fail builds or superior builds that gain excess xp, answer the challenge: "we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer: "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." HA! Good Fun! @Azrael Ultima I think I found your strawmen. In case you're having trouble connecting the dots Gromnir, see all those highlighted words, no one but you is saying that. I do realize that by acting like someone is it makes it much easier for you to argue against what they are actually saying. But no one but you is saying that people who what kill xp feel cheated that sneaky and diplomatic characters would get the same amount. No one but you is saying that skill use in dialogue shouldn't be rewarded by xp. There are just many of us who would also like to be rewarded with xp for participating in the most frequent component of the game. Combat. fine, then balance it. if you don't want sneaky and diplomats cheated, answer our challenge. still no takers HA! Good Fun!

But there are no sneaky or diplo characters in this game. All builds are combat characters. all builds have combat efficacy. however, as this is a cRPg, it allows us to solve quests via sneaky and or diplomatic means. our first encounter with the ogre in the caves were solved diplomatically... or sneaky, depending on how you look at it. should we have been robbed of all xp for quest completion because we chose to complete quest other than through violence? c'mon folks, be serious. HA! Good Fun! You get to not take health damage and then use rest resources. Thats certainly a bonus. Maybe not the best bonus with regards to the ogre but that kinda thinking could certainly come into play in certain situations. I could certainly see that line of thinking being prevalent in Ironman mode. There is also the rep system which suggests the game will offer reactivity if you are known for not being a total thug in all situations. Is it an equivalent bonus to combat xp? Probably not, but so what? Look, if this were a Gandhi sim (or any sim!), I'd be right there with you. If the noncombat stuff were just as prevalent as the combat stuff or if players had to choose between pumping combat or noncombat skills, then you would be 100% right. But this is a combat heavy game where 99% of the character development is centered around making characters that can murder things with great efficiency. I do not see an issue with the xp system rewarding players additionally for succeeding at what the game focuses on. oh please, you ain't being serious. we fight or sneak through an entire map, stuck at level 5. we finally beat the ogre through guile and get... saved camping resources? ... you can't be serious with these kinda replies. HA! Good Fun!

doesn't make a difference. once you add ad hoc awards for individual minor success, you create the balancing problem we mentioned before. you don't actual believe that kill xp + quest exp alleviates balancing problems, do you? HA! Good Fun!

I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares? the developers do. many players do. those who wish for more replay-ability do. nevertheless, if that is your pov, we understand the impasse. you do not see inherent value in players choosing different approaches but getting same/similar xp value. the developers disagree wholeheartedly with you and thus they have chosen a method that guarantees equal xp to all players regardless o' how they solve a quest. why should kill ogre get xp, but trick ogre get nothing? why should a character who specializes in unlocking every chest get loot AND more xp than a person who don't have a dedicated lockpicker? etc. you don't have a problem with the disparity. thus ends common ground and we will make no headway. thankfully, obsidian sees value in balance xp awards. lump sums is how old pnp did it. you is still being rewarded for killing stuff by getting your xp award, but you feel slighted 'cause sneaky and diplomats is getting same lump sum? why? so, given that obsidian is making game and has stated innumerable times they don't want fail builds or superior builds that gain excess xp, answer the challenge: "we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer: "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." HA! Good Fun!

But there are no sneaky or diplo characters in this game. All builds are combat characters. all builds have combat efficacy. however, as this is a cRPg, it allows us to solve quests via sneaky and or diplomatic means. our first encounter with the ogre in the caves were solved diplomatically... or sneaky, depending on how you look at it. should we have been robbed of all xp for quest completion because we chose to complete quest other than through violence? c'mon folks, be serious. HA! Good Fun!

"So why introduce this change? Why do the devs keep driving the design away from IE-like games? That is not what Pillars of Eternity was supposed to be." asked and answered. we never denied that d&d gave xp for killing stuff, but it were done in large lump sums, just as PoE awards in large lump sums. the thing is, d&d evolved from chainmail and tabletop wargaming and the role-playing in d&d weren't actual handled by rules. d&d were a a very shallow combat mechanics set o' rules, and the role-play were left up to players and the dm. PoE, thankfully, is a bit more evolved than old white box. we get xp for sneaky and diplomatic and we don't get xp simple for acquiring gold pieces. keep in mind that PoE is also a crpg. there is a single DM for literal thousands o' people, and the dm is dumb... mute. you don't appeal to the dm 'cause the PoE dm is a bit o' software. you cannot ask dm why bob is getting 2x as much xp as is you simply 'cause you made the mistake o' building a more stealthy or diplomatic character. but again, we addressed the why and we posed the challenge. like it or not, role-play games has evolved and even the ie games you point to gave xp for disarming traps, picking locks, learning spells and other stuff. in point o' fact, the first thing a dual-class fighter-mage could do to gain a level or two would be to memorize a stockpile o' scrolls and add them to his spell book. it were silly and nonsensical. in 10 seconds we could go from level 1 mage to level 2 or even three simply by adding spells to spellbook. use ie as your guide is a bad idea. "we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer: "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." am gonna keep asking til we get an answer. HA! Good Fun!

ah, actual quote from old D&D: "DIVIDING XP: Treasure is divided by the party, but the DM handles all the XP awards. At the end of an adventure, the DM totals the XP from all treasures recovered plus all monsters defeated and then divides the total by the number of surviving characters (both player characters and NPCs) in the party." further goes on to mentions 'bout awarding bonuses for clever and creative resolutions n' such, but fact remains that old d&d gave awards post adventure. huzzah. we now have clarity. HA! Good Fun!