Gromnir

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!

Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons. 1)If there is content in this game that is not tied to a quest, your system doesn't address it. 2)If there are times when combat is forced/required, your system doesn't address it. 3)If the diplomatic route in a quest simply requires a single skill/stat check, while the combat route requires use of more than one player skill, your system does not take that into account. 4)If sneaking past an encounter doesn't grant loot rewards but intimidation and/or combat does, your system does not address it. 5)If solving a dungeon puzzle requires no character skill and rewards XP, but killing the dungeon level's inhabitants requires the use of several of your character's skills but Doesn't reward XP, your system is a joke. In light of the above, I'd have to conclude that BG2's system, while still flawed, is certainly a better system than the one you are proposing. Hey Gromnir, that was SIMPLE. actually, quest xp addresses all your concerns by simply not dividing those individual aspects into unnecessarily minor parts. you get xp for achieving major goals, period. you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them? why?. obsidian actually hearkens back to old pnp roots and observes that it doesn't matter what route you take to achieve the ultimate goal of the quest. this is not complex. you are adding complexity where it is not needed. you should not need a metaphorical pat on the head for every success in the game. quest/task is infinitely easy and it is impossible to break... save for when it is bugged as it currently is. HA! Good Fun! Gromnir, I like you. I think you contribute very sensible and good ideas. However, in this one very limited, highlighted, case above, you have totally missed the mark. Its time for this old grognard to break out his library and school you. Here is a quote from the original pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons rulebook What follows in the book is a list of how much experience a monster provides based on its hit die. Now, AD&D, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, and Pathfinder all include the experience gains by monster's slain. It of course remains an option for a DM to award experience based on quests and other things, but that is not the core experience mechanic supported by "old pnp roots." I think it is healthy to have disagreement and discussion about the game mechanics, but please check your "fact" statements to make sure they are indeed correct lest you build a house on a foundation of sand. am gonna break out old d&d rule books if we must, but you is misreading. xp awards were given at the END of adventures. sure, you gain experience as you progress, but the actual awards happen at end of adventure and is not tabulated ad hoc. HA! Good Fun! ps we will note that 3e changed the dynamic as it were far easier to award encounter xp, though typical xp were still awarded lump sum after adventure completion.

I think it could serve as incentive / reward. Lets you know you are making incremental improvements. as we said, what you suggest is a metaphorical gold star on timmy's homework... which has merit. timmy likes getting the pat on the head. nevertheless, is not that you is failing to get a lump sum o' experience for the quest, but you want the incremental reward for small actions. very well. address the same challenge we posed earlier, the same one that confounded stun "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." as soon as you give rewards for individual actions, you must necessarily begin a tedious balancing challenge. so, show us the system that is as simple, elegant and flawless as quest/task. show us a system that will require as little in the way o' developer resources. am admitting that we is stymied in our attempts to come up with such a system, but if you may do so, we applaud you and recommend you send off your plan to obsidian forthwith. HA! Good Fun! ps we keep forgetting zeits focus. so, please end PoE better than motb. a plane spanning battle v. gods that eventual ends in a mano-y-mano id v super-ego battle is an underwhelming resolution.

Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons. 1)If there is content in this game that is not tied to a quest, your system doesn't address it. 2)If there are times when combat is forced/required, your system doesn't address it. 3)If the diplomatic route in a quest simply requires a single skill/stat check, while the combat route requires use of more than one player skill, your system does not take that into account. 4)If sneaking past an encounter doesn't grant loot rewards but intimidation and/or combat does, your system does not address it. 5)If solving a dungeon puzzle requires no character skill and rewards XP, but killing the dungeon level's inhabitants requires the use of several of your character's skills but Doesn't reward XP, your system is a joke. In light of the above, I'd have to conclude that BG2's system, while still flawed, is certainly a better system than the one you are proposing. Hey Gromnir, that was SIMPLE. actually, quest xp addresses all your concerns by simply not dividing those individual aspects into unnecessarily minor parts. you get xp for achieving major goals, period. you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them? why?. obsidian actually hearkens back to old pnp roots and observes that it doesn't matter what route you take to achieve the ultimate goal of the quest. this is not complex. you are adding complexity where it is not needed. you should not need a metaphorical pat on the head for every success in the game. quest/task is infinitely easy and it is impossible to break... save for when it is bugged as it currently is. HA! Good Fun! ps to stay on topic, Gromnir is still looking for depth from the PoE world. the small portion o' the game is, we believe, intentionally limiting our exposure to world lore and depth, so we cannot see how zeits can be impressed by what we has seen thus far.

being kinda selective, eh? well, we kinda predicted that months ago. nevertheless, this entire discussion 'bout xp awards is spam as is having been repeated ad nauseum in multiple threads and is not particular relevant to zeits. that being said, we do likes that we get to say, "we told you so," and be correct. "We used to have the choice to either engage in combat or not. We used to have the choice to be diplomatic or not. PoE is a stealth simulator that doesn't resemble the IE games at all, it is just a boring stealth simulator where the core activity is avoiding combat while doing the bidding of villagers for XP. "You don't want a roleplaying game that offers choices and hate combat? Then go play Pacifist: The Pacification or a stealth simulator. "HA! Good Fun! (<- god, that is so retarded)" all of which, even if true, would not be a valid argument for separating xp awards into individual constituent parts such as lockpick success, sneak, diplomacy and fighty as it would lead to a need to balance such awards. seriously, how is this not getting through? HA! Good Fun!

Insufficient information given. We'd need to know how much easier/harder the diplomatic route will be vis-a-vis combat route. We'd need to know precisely how viable stealthing will be. We'd need to know exactly how many instances of required combat there is, and we'd need to be assured that every single option will be viable in every single quest. Otherwise your proposal is neither better design, nor simpler design. It's just Lazier design. you don't need more information. the fact that you believe you need more info is proof itself that alternative options is necessarily more complex. obsidian need not ask any o' your queries 'cause regardless o' the answers, everybody gets same awards with quest xp. duh. HA! Good Fun!

to ink blot as clarification please keep in mind that we is much in favor o' providing additional opportunities for sneaky and diplomatic or unforeseen and creative resolutions. we like combat, but more choices in a crpg makes Gromnir more happy. that being said, encouraging obsidian to offer more such options is a separate issue from how xp is awarded. HA! Good Fun!

Which would be great if almost every talent/ability/spell wasn't geared towards combat effectiveness. I made a 'pacifist' Rogue earlier this morning to see if you could complete the quests in the beta without combat. Kitted an Orlan Rogue out with Stealth and Mechanics for skills, and pumped Intellect, Resolve, and Perception all to 15. However, every single one of the class abilities I was able to choose from when leveling were combat-oriented. Even the bloody class and race extras at character creation were geared toward combat. Honestly, I don't mind the idea of quest XP only, but for the love of the deities why is every single ability/perk/talent/class special ability/spell all geared toward combat effectiveness? this is a complete different argument from the quest based xp question. perhaps you feel diplomatic and sneaky options is underrepresented. Gromnir hasn't gotten very far, but we has been able to talk way past most major encounters. nevertheless, if xp were awarded for sneaky and diplomatic and lockpicks and kills, there would almost certainly needs be a resulting best build for maximizing xp rewards. quest/task awards as only xp outlet removes the need to find a correct or meaningful balance such that no one style o' gameplay results in greater xp awards. HA! Good Fun!

such posts reveal just how utterly and intractably obtuse you is being. nevertheless, instead o' getting stoopid and repetitive and sweary, answer our challenge as posed above. HA! Good Fun!

Well, what were you expecting from a game where the core activity is combat? Not to mention that Baldur's Gate had diplomatic/peaceful solutions to quests, and you don't have to kill everything just because you get XP for doing so, so that isn't a problem anyway. Do you play flight simulators and whine that you have to fly a plane too or what? Go play a stealth game or pacifist: the pacification if it bothers you. 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!

Bullsh*t, You're stating an opinion as fact. I want XP for completing quests equally as much as I want XP for killing things. Take either of them away from me, And I will respond to the omission the SAME. Incidently, there would be nothing stopping the devs from increasing quest completion rewards for those who completed those quests non-violently, thus equaling out the discrepancy you claim will occur for the violent route. And it's not up Gromnir to decide whether or not a thread discussion is "too old" to be discussed. I don't see a moderator tag next to your name, so stop pretending you're one. asking for both kill and quest xp utterly defeats the Point o' quest only. duh. HA! Good Fun!

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. go ahead. HA! Good Fun! edited a double "that"

don't be obtuse. if you want xp for individual kills or individual lockpicks you is not actual advocating the quest/task xp reward approach. *sigh* and the reasons why xp for kills and individual activities PLUS quest awards has been beaten to death... beaten beyond death, is that if the fighty character gets more xp 'cause xp from fights ends up yielding more xp, then you is functional encouraging fighty even if you do make diplomatic and sneaky options viable. quest and task xp awards avoids any sorta attempts to balance awards for differing play styles... yadda-yadda, etc. ad nauseum. *groan*' you don't have any idea just how obtuse this all is and how repetitive. HA! Good Fun! ps say something new. give us a new perspective. come up with a new argument. anything. please.