XP only for Questing: Some Observations

[Director]

You are right PsychoBlonde, being only rewarded for quest completion does force you to only ever do the quest, but we would be doing quests regardless. The problem only arises, if we only have one option to complete the quest with not alternative path or alternative outcome.

 

I do have a problem with the concept of an NPC handing out worldly experience like it is some sort of currency, it is ridiculous to me. One should gain experience through their actions during the quest and only a item or monetary reward for the quest itself.

 

Edit - When I went to college it was the years of learning that gave me experience, not the guy that handed me the certificate at the end, the certificate was just the reward.

 

If it's using the Vampire:Bloodlines model, (previous Tim Cain game), then you just get xp for each objective you achieve. Say you need to talk to a dude on the top floor of a building, the first objective is "Get inside the building". Whether you kill the guards / talk your way past the guards / turn invisible and walk past the guards / sneak in via the sewers, as soon as you get inside: "Objective Complete - XP awarded". The next objective is then "Get to the top floor" with similar options, as soon as you reach the top floor: Objective Complete. Next Objective: Confront Dude. And so on.

[Aedelric]

being more realistic doesn't make it a better video game mechanic.

 

In this case it does, tried and trusted in many, many games.

[duskwind]

Or, they can have a level cap that you can hit by only doing, say, 50% of the quests. Or they can make it so it doesn't really matter what level you are as you progress down the main story line. Granted, there are tradeoffs with these options, too.

 

Those would remove the XP incentive for combat etc as well, which is rather counter to your desire for XP for everything.

 

What is it to you if my little brother wants to cap his character by doing random encounters?

 

What if he wants to cap his character by eating candy? Doing nothing but fighting random monsters isn't roleplaying, and you shouldn't expect to get it from an RPG. There are plenty of other games that are only about fighting, if that's what he wants. And if he does want to play through the story with a maxed out character, rather than grinding for the sake of it, that's what cheat codes are for.

 

Or, let's imagine that they take into account that sometimes It's fun to fight stuff.

 

So fight stuff for fun. Why do you need fun and XP?

 

The only ultimate "solution" if you want to keep XP and leveling is to hand out XP for everything and let people *really* decide how they feel like leveling at any given time.

 

There is no "only" alternative

[Volourn]

Has Obsidian stated that xp is quest only? It didn't work out well in either V:BL or ME2, imo.

[PsychoBlonde]

And it's precisely what you were promoting as a justification against quests awarding XP. Metagaming as an excuse to not do quests.

 

Here: "It means, for instance, that you can't ever design a story where the consequences are ugly and evil no matter what you do, and the only way to "win" is not to play."

That was your argument for not doing quests. That you "win" by not doing them. That you win by metagaming, and somehow this is an argument against quests being the source of XP.

 

Um, no. Not even remotely close. I'm not asking for quests to NOT reward xp. I'm saying that rewarding xp ONLY for doing quests does not in any way, shape, or form allow people to play in whatever way suits them even if they can hypothetically do the quest in a dozen different ways. They still HAVE to do SOME quests in order to get xp and to level. This doesn't even necessarily mean that you HAVE to level to finish the game--they could make a game where you can finish the whole thing without ever once acquiring an experience point. What it does mean, is that you cannot get xp or level by running around killing monsters or stealing people blind or any of the other myriad fun activities usually present in the game unless these activities also happen to be quests.

 

I'm not saying "don't do quests". I am saying that you ought to be able to CHOOSE whether or not you ACCEPT a PARTICULAR quest, to which you replied that it's absurd and stupid NOT to accept EVERY SINGLE QUEST because the devs HAVE to make it so you can get something you WANT out of it otherwise they're bad devs who don't know how to design a game. To which I said, in essence, this is absurd. There's no reason why the devs shouldn't be able make a quest where the only endings are nasty things that you, the player, may not want to play through, in which case, if player freedom is your design concern, the player ought to have the ability to just reject the entire quest outright.

 

Giving out XP ONLY for doing quests does NOT allow you to play "however you want" because you HAVE to do quests in order to level. You CANNOT level via any other means than DOING QUESTS. If they REALLY want you to be free to play "however you want" (within the constraints of the game physics, of course), they need to give out XP for any activity that is a part of the game regardless of whether it fits in a particular quest or not. Turning EVERYTHING into a quest doesn't solve this problem, either, it just makes the game needlessly convoluted by jamming EVERY activity into some sort of quest box.

 

Or, alternatively, they could remove leveling as a mechanic altogether.

 

I'm not arguing In FAVOR OF people NOT DOING QUESTS like playing the game is some kind of gamer protest movement. I was pointing out that if some random person wishes to play in such a fashion that they NEVER EVER IN ANY WAY incur ANY kind of NEGATIVE consequences on ANYONE, that they always get EXACTLY what they want as if the game universe is their personal playground, AND they're confronted with a quest where if you accept and do the quest, you GET a negative outcome, they can still practice their "agency" and get what they want by NOT DOING THE QUEST. It is only metagaming if they a.) know this in advance and b.) choose it for those reasons.

 

But here's the thing--somebody who wants to play like that is going to be metagaming ANYWAY. As long as the game ALLOWS for other people to play in a DIFFERENT way, the game itself is NOT forcing anyone to metagame. Therefore the game mechanics themselves are not "metagaming" regardless of whether any given player decides they want to metagame or not. EVERYONE gets to play how they want to play, nobody is restricted because you CAN'T refuse a quest and you CAN'T level except by doing quests.

 

Basically, what you are arguing here is that people OUGHT to be FORCED to do quests in order to level, because anything else is a.) bad game design, or b.) metagaming. Which is flatly ridiculous.

 

I am responding to the video update where they stated, specifically, that they are putting the XP strictly at the end of a quest BECAUSE this should fix the problem of having vastly disparate rewards for people playing in different ways. All I am saying is that they are not solving the problem they think they are by putting all XP at the end of quests. I don't think rewarding XP only for quests is a BAD thing necessarily, any more than I'd object to a game where the only thing that grants XP is murdering tons of dudes. I probably wouldn't PLAY that game because it wouldn't interest me, but I'd never say "this is an invalid way to design a game". It's not invalid to create a game in which you have to do every single in-game activity to complete it, either. The only invalid thing is saying both "we will let you play however you want" AND "we're only giving out XP if you complete quests". These statements are mutually exclusive--they cannot both be true.

[PsychoBlonde]

Has Obsidian stated that xp is quest only? It didn't work out well in either V:BL or ME2, imo.

 

They said that's the plan in the video on update #7.

[PsychoBlonde]

Those would remove the XP incentive for combat etc as well, which is rather counter to your desire for XP for everything.

 

I don't necessarily WANT xp for EVERYTHING. I'm saying that IF (notice that IF) they WANT you to be able to play the game in ANY way you want, then they ALSO need to give you XP for doing WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO, regardless of whether that completes a quest or not. OR, if you don't have xp or levels, you can still play however you want because that entire aspect is completely removed.

 

I don't understand why you people find this so hard to grasp. Do a mental exercise. Imagine you're my brother playing Arcanum. He was like 8 years old at the time, and his reading skills and comprehension was not such that doing the quests was a particularly enjoyable activity to him, but he LOVED the combat. So, for him, the best way to play the game was to run around the map and do random encounters until his characters had godlike proportions. THEN he could run around and do the quests and have fun at the incredibly random variety of results he got (and very often failing the quest completely) because he didn't really read the text that much.

 

Now, take this brother of mine, and project his playing interests and style onto a game where the ONLY way he could level his characters was by doing quests and completing them successfully. Would he have fun? Probably not. Too much reading, not enough fighting.

 

NOW think about what the devs said. They want you to be able to play however you want. That really OUGHT to include BOTH my brother the fanatical quest-avoider-and-failer and me, the fanatical quest-doer, right? Except the WAY in which they talk about including both of us ACTUALLY excludes my brother.

 

I am not SAYING they HAVE to build the game for my brother AND me. (They have to build if for ME.) I am saying that, IF their goal is, in fact to include both my brother and me, then the mechanical decision they have declared does not, in fact, accomplish this.

 

 

What if he wants to cap his character by eating candy? Doing nothing but fighting random monsters isn't roleplaying, and you shouldn't expect to get it from an RPG. There are plenty of other games that are only about fighting, if that's what he wants. And if he does want to play through the story with a maxed out character, rather than grinding for the sake of it, that's what cheat codes are for.

 

Sure, there are other games out there. But the devs have SAID that they WANT to accommodate his playstyle IN THIS ONE, and they are NOT DOING THAT. This is what I am pointing out. I'm not saying they HAVE to accommodate him. I'm saying they need to be aware that they are NOT if this is, in fact, their GOAL.

 

The only ultimate "solution" if you want to keep XP and leveling is to hand out XP for everything and let people *really* decide how they feel like leveling at any given time.

 

There is no "only" alternative

 

That doesn't mean there is no only "solution". See the IF there? IF you want to accomplish a certain goal, you have to do certain things. Alternatives mean you have different GOALS.

 

If you're going to try to be a smartass, you might accomplish it better if you do some thinking first.

Edited September 25, 2012 by PsychoBlonde

[IcyDeadPeople]

It's interesting to hear the devs talk about implementing a system whereby you get XP only for fulfilling objectives

 

Can you elaborate on where this was stated?

 

I'm familiar with some mention of getting XP for non-combat skills in the recent Update #7, but I wasn't aware of any confirmation the player only receives XP for quests. I took the comment in the update to mean it was likely XP would be linked to using your skills.

Edited September 25, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[Director]

"Avoiding combat does not lead to less experience gain. You shouldn't go up levels any slower by using your non-combat skills rather than your combat skills. We plan to reward you for your accomplishments, not for your body count." - Tim Cain Update 7.

 

Agree that he doesn't specifically say that you only get xp for achieving objectives. This could mean you get xp for every potion made, every conversation, every lock picked.

[Volourn]

And, I hope that is what they mean. XP by quest completion only is good in theory but has never worked to satisfaction in practice. As above, BL and ME2 are evidence of this. Of course, xp by combat ONLY is also a bad idea.

[IcyDeadPeople]

XP by quest completion only is good in theory but has never worked to satisfaction in practice.

 

It would seem to be more appropriate for a game that is much more linear in nature than what I've read about Project Eternity so far. If you can go to all sorts of different areas in this large game world, with all sorts of different playing styles, different factions and lots of quests you can complete according to your own approach, this doesn't seem to mesh with the type of linear corridor cinematic game that provides XP based on completing each stage of a predetermined mission.

Edited September 25, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[Director]

And, I hope that is what they mean. XP by quest completion only is good in theory but has never worked to satisfaction in practice. As above, BL and ME2 are evidence of this. Of course, xp by combat ONLY is also a bad idea.

 

Wait ... of all the complaints I have EVER heard of Bloodlines and ME2, (and I've heard a lot of them), I've NEVER heard anyone complain about how xp worked. In fact - I had no idea that this was how ME2 worked, I never even noticed.

[trulez]

...

Most of the criticism really only pertains to games like MMOs where questing and leveling up IS the game. I don't think anything you said pertains to offline single player RPG genre. The player who chose to be a brutal warrior slashing through hordes of baddies did so knowing that there would be hordes of baddies for him to slash through to finish the game. Same is true for the stealthy thief who chose his class knowing he'd be able to slip past and sneak around most if not all obstacles and baddies in order to finish the game.

 

Does it REALLY matter that somewhere out there someone finished that same quest few seconds faster than you just because you're the warrior and he's the thief ? I think not.

Edited September 25, 2012 by trulez

[Technatorium]

I remember in past Black Isle Studio games that XP wasn't always just in the quests. Often you got exprience in how you did a quest. If I remember if you lockpicked or disarmed a trap (like in Fallout 1/2) you got XP. I really don't see Quest only XP a good way to go. I want surprised exprience. Like wow.. you can get exprience if you do this. Or if you choose this dialog path you could get exprience because you decided to become more involved with the character's development.

 

I'm not saying it is the only way to go but just staying with quest-only xp I feel is not a good path to follow. It wasn't something that those earlier games did as far as I remember. It also feels like you get cheated from the exploring of the area aspect of the game.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Technatorium

[Djole]

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines worked great with XP rewarded for quests only. Leveling up through grinding, crafting and other activities would lead to player exploitation of the system and introduce breaking of game difficulty and challenge. If the XP for other activities should be rewarded, it should be in small portions not to break the game. Crafting is a reward for its own sake, etc.

[SqueakyCat]

I actually didn't care for that system in Bloodlines or ME2.

 

I guess it's my own naitivity, but I took the information on the Kickstarter page for PE quite literally -- an isometric, real-time with pause system and designed "to recapture the magic, imagination, depth, and nostalgia of classic RPGs". This design choice, for me, is a departure from the classics like IWD and BG.

 

And, yes, I realize they aren't designing this game specifically for me. Ultimately, everyone will have to decide if this is the game you thought it would be as more information is disseminated. Right now, I'm on the fence. I was all-in, but now not so much. There's still 21 days to go so I'll just wait for additional announcements.

 

As far as exploitation of an XP based system, isn't that really up to the gamer? It can only be exploited if you actively do so. To me, it diminishes the experience of the game, so I don't, but, again, to each his own. It's certainly not up to me to tell someone how to enjoy any particular game.

[Volourn]

It worked horrible. It made combat useless. I remember I just didn't care about doing anything except running down the hallway to get to the end and not 'experiencing' anything. You should be rewarded for all experiences not just 'quest compeltion' but combat and non combat stuff. Crafting a magical item should be ewarded, defeating a giant (not enccessarily as aprt of a quest), or persudading a baretnder to give you a discount should all be rewarded with xp even if theya ren't officially a part of a lame quest. Xp for actual activities (random, or non quest related) is a good way to reward the player for exploration and thinking out of the box.

 

Question only xp leads the player into linear thinking and gives one absolutely no freedom. Why fight when you get nothing out of it? Why talk when you get nothing out of it? Why explore when you get nothing out of it? XP, equiipment, and 'the experience' are all 3 aspects that players should be rewarded iby in all aspects of the game. Quest xp is about boxing the player in. It's almost as bad as games that *only* award xp for fighting. Both ways are evil, immoral, and sickening and spit in the face of REAL role-playing.

[Cantousent]

See, here's what I don't understand. Squeaky, don't get me wrong. I'm trying to engage in discussion, not insult you, but combat xp is the deal breaker? I mean, I can understand if there's a list and combat xp is one issue for you. I don't think it should be, but I respect that it is. ...But it can't be the one thing that put you on the fence.

 

I simply don't understand why folks have such depth of feeling based on combat xp. Do you think it will prevent you from killing monsters if that's what you want to do? Do you think it will make it so folks won't craft, pick, talk, hack, or otherwise do the other things they liked to do before any one of those things garnered xp? Will you really miss the xp if you aren't looking for it? I bet they could've made the game quest only xp without showing the xp gains and the vast majority of folks who complain about the decision would never have known the difference.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Cantousent

[Volourn]

"vast majority of folks who complain about the decision would never have known the difference."

 

Proof please. This is a RPG. XP gain is expected in one way or another. If it wasn't shown being gained people are darn well gonna wonder wth is up. L0L

[SqueakyCat]

You misunderstood me completely. There are actually a few things I am still waiting to hear before I decide what course I will take. In and of itself, the quest XP is not a deal breaker, however, if it is combined with a couple of other things, then yes.

 

I'm in for waaaay more than $80, so I would need to rethink what level I would support.

 

I think the "depth of feeling" comes from nostalgia -- at least for me. As I said, I think I may have naively misinterpreted what the vision is for this game and the target audience. I really, really hope not.

 

Thanks for the polite response. I always enjoy a good discussion. If I may ask, what attracted you to support the game?

[Tale]

I sincerely doubt it will be quest XP. Probably more like challenge XP. A puzzle will give XP whether you solve it or cut the knot. A random encounter will give XP, regardless of whether you talk, fight, or flee. A dungeon will give XP past chokepoints like floor transitions. That kind of thing. Good thing about that design is that you can still give XP for a dungeon with a quest attached even if they don't have the quest.

 

That is if they keep to the equality idea regardless of approach.

[Cantousent]

Oh, I'm an Obsidz junkie from way back in the BIS days. Once they let me be the water boy for the Obsidz team and I've been loyal ever since. Anyway, the game I liked most is PS:T, which definitely gave tons and tons of combat xp. I'm going to go with whatever they decide, but I do prefer objective only xp.

 

As for you, Vol, ol' man, tsk tsk tsk Quote the whole sentence if you want a response. :Cant's fond smile icon: Good to see you still like a good brawl, but I'm too lazy to get into fisticuffs these days.

[Gatt9]

I actually didn't care for that system in Bloodlines or ME2.

 

I guess it's my own naitivity, but I took the information on the Kickstarter page for PE quite literally -- an isometric, real-time with pause system and designed "to recapture the magic, imagination, depth, and nostalgia of classic RPGs". This design choice, for me, is a departure from the classics like IWD and BG.

 

And, yes, I realize they aren't designing this game specifically for me. Ultimately, everyone will have to decide if this is the game you thought it would be as more information is disseminated. Right now, I'm on the fence. I was all-in, but now not so much. There's still 21 days to go so I'll just wait for additional announcements.

 

As far as exploitation of an XP based system, isn't that really up to the gamer? It can only be exploited if you actively do so. To me, it diminishes the experience of the game, so I don't, but, again, to each his own. It's certainly not up to me to tell someone how to enjoy any particular game.

 

A fair portion of RPG gamers hate anything that isn't their personal preference for gaming mechanics, and will not enter into a real debate, nor will they discuss root causes for issues. Xp/kill is a bigger one of the places you'll see that, Vancian magic is the biggest though.

 

But it doesn't come close to the level of "My way only" you'll get in a roomfull of LARPsers. Walk into one of those rooms and fail to speak Olde English and see what happens.

 

I simply don't understand why folks have such depth of feeling based on combat xp. Do you think it will prevent you from killing monsters if that's what you want to do? Do you think it will make it so folks won't craft, pick, talk, hack, or otherwise do the other things they liked to do before any one of those things garnered xp? Will you really miss the xp if you aren't looking for it? I bet they could've made the game quest only xp without showing the xp gains and the vast majority of folks who complain about the decision would never have known the difference.

 

Three points.

 

1. Yes, it does prevent you from killing monsters. Because there ceases to be a point to it. If you have nothing to gain, then why do it?

2. I'll guarantee you alot of people would notice it, if not everyone. It doesn't take long for people to realize they're doing something for no reason at all, and then they're going to get bored of it.

3. Then they're going to start asking why killing things doesn't improve their sword skill, talking their way out of things doesn't improve their diplomacy, but handing someone a marble makes them better at both. Which, honestly, is far more nonsensical than xp/kill. There's no way to logic out a rationale for that.

[Gorth]

I would like to know more about the game mechanics before setting my mind in stone so to speak. I was one of those who liked how it was done in VMBL and to some degree in Icewind Dale too. The former gave you "points" to spend for achieving objectives. Bonus points for particularly sneaky ways of reaching your objectives. The latter gave you a small handout of xp for killing monsters, but the bulk of the xp was for completing each "phase" of the game. Probably to ensure that your party had the necessary levels to survive the next part

 

I don't like a pure xp for kills/lockpick/trap disarm/insert trivial thing here, as it is no different from Oblivions learn agility by jumping all over the place like a rabbit thing. It's a tedious grind to gain some arbitrary number to increase.

 

In the end, for me (and I am the most important person in my universe), what matters is that I feel like I make progress in the game. Whether I get physical improvements or just get to keep the loot from killing enemies as reward depends on what the alternatives are.

 

Does anybody know if there is even going to be xp? I don't remember the exact quote, but I'm fairly sure that the interview mentioned rewards for accomplishments, which is not necessarily equivalent to quest rewards. Heck, you could get bonus xp for playing true to your characters nature just because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy

[Cantousent]

Okay, Gatt, but the point about how xp is allocated isn't a question of combat v non combat xp. It's a question of how skills relate to xp.

 

I don't agree that folks won't kill stuff in the course of adventuring. I think they would. While some people might notice how it works, my bet (not my assertion based on proof, Vol) is that a lot of folks wouldn't notice the lack of experience gain because they would still be gaining experience. So, the folks who would most likely notice would be folks killing things just for xp. I don't have it in for them, but I don't completely sympathize with them either. I want you to enjoy the game, but I still think combat design is a flaw. I probably always will at this point.