FO:NV

[cronicler]

DnD 2nd ed actually had something like that (the normal humanoids gave 15 to 25 XP. Your actual XP income was for hunting really big monsters or questing (which usually pointed you to hunt really big bad guys or monsters )

 

As for Computer RPGs, System Shock had a similar system. The enemies were actually there to slow you down and inconveniece you. You got your XP (Aka Modules) for reaching pre-determined points (and hidden containers that contained them as a reward to exploring). I think SS2 is still the best game that managed to balance the scaricity (sp?) of resources (ammo, boosters, breakable weapons) with rewards to exploring.

[jero cvmi]

another idea: Divide XP from monsters by the number of the monsters of the same type that you have already killed.

So the first time you kill a rat, you may gain-say 100 XP, but the 100th rat gives 1 XP, and the 101st zero.

That way the total number of battle XPs you may gain is finite and stable depending on how many different types of monsters are there.

 

Also, i'm not sure but i think i've played RPGs that scaled XP from monsters by the player's level, so that low level players gain XP from low level monsters, whereas high level players don't.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Ziggy the Atomic Granpa

[Spider]

Bloodlines did the quest xp only thing. It was awesome, it really freed up how you played your character. In fact, you typically got more XP if you went about things without killing.

[cronicler]

Also, i'm not sure but i think i've played RPGs that scaled XP from monsters by the player's level, so that low level players gain XP from low level monsters, whereas high level players don't.

 

 

I thought that was the sandart for most of XP/Level sysem using games nowadays? (Except some games like Diablo 2 but those games have exponantially increasing xp requirements so that after a few levels it forces you to move on instead of harvesting 20xp per mob to amass 65milion xp to the next level )

[Hurlshort]

Bloodlines did the quest xp only thing. It was awesome, it really freed up how you played your character. In fact, you typically got more XP if you went about things without killing.

 

Yep, that was awesome. I love games that reward you for not being a mass murderer.

[213374U]

Yep. That also has the key advantage of rewarding combat, stealth and speech-oriented characters equally. This should be like CRPG design 101 by now... but it isn't, for some reason.

[Aristes]

I have to come out for quest xp also. I've long thought that we should not have xp for killing monsters and that we should get just as much xp for using stealth, charm, or intelligence to make it past encounters as we do for killing through them. That doesn't mean you can't force the players to face combat if that's part of the design, especially if that's the emphasis, but it does mean that players don't feel compelled to be a killing machine. I had never thought of it as "freeing up" the way I play, but that's spot on, Spidey.

[entrerix]

I am also in favor of just making xp for quests.

 

killing people should award a token amount of xp though, just so you don't feel like you wasted your ammo for nothing. but 95% of the xp should come from quests

 

edit: i feel its important to get SOME xp for killing things. remember how much better castlevania got when it adopted an xp system for killing stuff? (i know thats not an rpg, I'm just pointing out that xp is a great reward, and its good to give for doing almost anything, but to eliminate grinding and balance the game, questing should account for nearly all the xp earned)

Edited September 4, 2009 by entrerix

[bhlaab]

The problem is that having a limited amount of XP in the world emphasizes a min/max powergamer approach to every quest instead of a natural one.

 

I think there should be minute XP rewards for pretty much anything that uses your skillset. Make it up to the player if he or she wants to grind, but make it so it's not necessary and so you can grind as any character archetype, not just combat.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The problem is that having a limited amount of XP in the world emphasizes a min/max powergamer approach to every quest instead of a natural one.

What is a "natural" approach to quests?

[entrerix]

i think he's talking about people saving before a quest and then doing the quest in the way that grants the most benefit, instead of doing what seems right for your character/personality

 

which is something many of us have done in games where the way you resolve a quest can drastically alter the reward you recieve.

[Aristes]

I think there should be minute XP rewards for pretty much anything that uses your skillset. Make it up to the player if he or she wants to grind, but make it so it's not necessary and so you can grind as any character archetype, not just combat.

Sure, you can use these successful skill checks to provide more variety to the exp pool. I get that you don't like the idea of a finite and readily defined exp pool will lead to meta gaming, but folks metagame already. Hell, if I know that I need to kill a certain number of a particular creature type in act one to get to a specific level so I can get a specific perk, I'm already doing that. Quest only exp would not be any worse in regards to metagaming. If the design team includes a variety of options in how the player can complete quests, the only real difference would be in making sure you can finish certain quest-lines, which will already be part and parcel of any real meta-gamer's plans. I, for one, don't plan out every quest. My only goal is to finish every possible quest in the game that can be done with a neutral or good character. ...And I need not do them all in one run.

 

Personally, I think removing exp rewards from combat is absolutely essential to getting away from a straightjacketed approach to cRPGs. Including a variety of non-combat exp rewards, such as skill checks, is perfectly fine if you don't want quest only exp.

 

In response to entrerix: So we're already planning out quests in the first place? *shrug* So what difference does it make? Quest only exp doesn't add anything to the meta-gamer's arsenal. Allowing more ways to farm exp does.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Aristes

[bhlaab]

The problem is that having a limited amount of XP in the world emphasizes a min/max powergamer approach to every quest instead of a natural one.

What is a "natural" approach to quests?

 

Well I think every sort of "choice and consequence" (to use an awful buzzword) branch needs a hard risk/reward gameplay scenario, but it needs to be veiled to keep the right brain happy. And when you have a hard limit on available XP it becomes so precious that the player is no longer making choices on their own merits.

 

Maybe this is just a point of view that comes from weaknesses in my own playstyle, though. Always at odds with myself because I want to make choices based on exposition and my character's skillset, but OCD enough that I need to get as much XP as possible. And yeah, the whole quicksave/quickload thing.

 

That said I did play all the way through Vampire Bloodlines without the limited XP being a problem (limited money is another issue, though)

Edited September 4, 2009 by bhlaab

[J.E. Sawyer]

i think he's talking about people saving before a quest and then doing the quest in the way that grants the most benefit, instead of doing what seems right for your character/personality

 

which is something many of us have done in games where the way you resolve a quest can drastically alter the reward you recieve.

That's more of a problem with quest design in general than with games where quests are the only way to receive XP.

[entrerix]

In response to entrerix: So we're already planning out quests in the first place? *shrug* So what difference does it make? Quest only exp doesn't add anything to the meta-gamer's arsenal. Allowing more ways to farm exp does.

 

 

im not sure i follow you here.... all i said was what i presumed bhlaab was trying to say. what are you responding too? when did i talk about metagaming and what did i say about it?

 

what are you trying to say?

 

i find this all to be very confusing....

[entrerix]

i think he's talking about people saving before a quest and then doing the quest in the way that grants the most benefit, instead of doing what seems right for your character/personality

 

which is something many of us have done in games where the way you resolve a quest can drastically alter the reward you recieve.

That's more of a problem with quest design in general than with games where quests are the only way to receive XP.

 

 

yeah i agree its a problem with quest design. what do you feel are the problems associated with quests being the primary/only xp source?

[Aristes]

In response to entrerix: So we're already planning out quests in the first place? *shrug* So what difference does it make? Quest only exp doesn't add anything to the meta-gamer's arsenal. Allowing more ways to farm exp does.

 

 

im not sure i follow you here.... all i said was what i presumed bhlaab was trying to say.

I was responding to Bhlaab's comment about powergaming. I guess I just got confused as to who said what, but it's not like I don't get confused all the time. If I have offended, I beg forgiveness. Either that or you can bite me, bro.

[entrerix]

lol no offendedness! i was just confused!

 

"don't tase me bro!!"

[Kjarista]

yeah i agree its a problem with quest design. what do you feel are the problems associated with quests being the primary/only xp source?

 

Play LOTRO and see. Seems to me that many game players like to kill things. Limiting things that players like to do is poor design, no matter what sort of social engineering you are trying to do. I don't think that any quest should be forced on players. If someone wants to set aside questing to just explore and kill mobs, then they should be able to do that without stalling their character advancement.

[Aristes]

A quest only experience design doesn't prevent anyone from killing monsters if that's what they want to do. It merely prevents folks from killing monsters in order to level up. It is a trivial matter to suggest that not implementing kill experience somehow prevents a player from exploring. He can explore, but will not be able to explore tougher areas than he can handle at level. At some point, he'll be forced to do quest. At some point in every cRPG I've ever played, the designers force the PC to do some quests to advance the game.

 

...And the very nature of the debate is confining. So, we must have kill experience? What about stealth experience that will be equivalent of kill experience? What about Intelligence experience that is the equivalent? What it really comes down to is that folks get added experience for killing which inclines folks to solve problems by killing. In many games, if not most, the player actually gains more experience from resorting to a combat solution than in using other tools available in the design.

 

Most non-combat skill experience I see in games is negligible. It really has very little impact. 25 experience for picking a lock? Give me a break. Add all of those non-combat skill checks into one experience pool and you'll get... what? Maybe an extra level? Maybe not? One of you guys crunch the numbers and tell me, because I honestly don't know. The point is, it's certainly less than kill farming. Frankly, I'd be just as happy to get rid of all experience other than quests. That is truly objective based. You are rewarded for accomplishing something, not randomly using skills, from swinging a sword to picking a lock.

 

We get experience for killing in games because that was the early model for RPGs and cRPGs. It's not inherently better and is probably worse. Should you have experience everytime you walk within combat range of someone who is friendly only because you passed a successful speech check and therefore the area is friendly? It's absolutely ridiculou. We're so conditioned by past games that getting out of the box is hard. Folks want to farm. Nevertheless, I think there are great games out there that have different level-up schemes and I hope that eventually we can get away from the kill-experience model.

 

With all that said, I don't think kill experience is universally bad. It should be an option, but not necessary. For example, folks have cited Diablo. That's a great example of a game where kill experience is implemented very well and is quite fun.

 

I actually believe that most folks who go out of their way to kill a bunch of critters do so to farm experience. I doubt there are hard numbers, so it's a philosophical debate, but if the argument is that you believe, Kjarista, that some folks just want to explore, which is undoubtedly true, then I will say that I believe most folks want to farm experience. That's fine. I want folks to have fun however they want to have fun, but the game has to be balanced all around and exp farming makes that more difficult and I think most games show that very quickly. I would imagine that it's much easier to balance a game that has quest only experience and that the easier balance results in other benefits for the game, from pacing to loot drop tables.

[Slowtrain]

yeah i agree its a problem with quest design. what do you feel are the problems associated with quests being the primary/only xp source?

 

Play LOTRO and see. Seems to me that many game players like to kill things. Limiting things that players like to do is poor design, no matter what sort of social engineering you are trying to do. I don't think that any quest should be forced on players. If someone wants to set aside questing to just explore and kill mobs, then they should be able to do that without stalling their character advancement.

 

 

2 responses come to mind here.

 

1) Hopefully, Fallout:NV will be aimed more at people who want to interact with a gameworld in ways other than killing everything. However, given that it is ultimately a Bethesda IP, I'm not anticipating that such will be the case. SO I wouldn't worry if I were you. The bulk of the game wil most likely be running around and killing stuff. But I'll still lobby for something more in the meantime.

 

2) Given the successful gameplay of other action/rpg games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and Bloodlines, which all had opportunity for all the killing and destruction a player could possibly hope for, yet did not directly award XP for the actual killing, your statement seems flawed. Character adavncement in no way has to be tied to killing while still presenting plenty of opportunity for killing if that is what the player wishes.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Hey Sawyer:

 

WORST. NEWS-LEAK. EVER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jus' sayin'.

[bhlaab]

Hey Sawyer:

 

WORST. NEWS-LEAK. EVER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jus' sayin'.

 

 

What?

[Guest Slinky]

Hey Sawyer:

 

WORST. NEWS-LEAK. EVER.

us' sayin'.

 

 

What?

Haha, sometimes I wonder is Twinkie constantly high or what

[TwinkieGorilla]

april, may, june, july, august, september.

 

 

awesome.