XP only for Questing: Some Observations

[TrashMan]

My concern is that everybody likes to play in a different way. For instance, I have a younger brother who played Arcanum, and you know how he leveled himself up? He ran around doing the random map encounters until he was level 50 before he did ANY questing. No, I'm not kidding. That's how he wanted to play.

 

If you ONLY get XP for doing ONE thing--completing quests--then you can ONLY level ONE WAY.

 

So? That one way is infinitely more flexible and allowing for different playstyles than the common "kill XP" method used by 99,9% of CRPG?s.

 

There is this weird nothing that game must carter ot EVERY whim and preffernce - no matter how redicolous. the only one who really looses are pwoergamers - those who don't think in terms of story and character, but in spredsheats, items and level "dings".

 

I don't feel sorry for their loss at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Practicly every game out there carters to them already.

 

 

 

And if you need to level to finish the game, then you HAVE to do quests.

 

Well DUH!

If you want to finish the game you have to play.

I have to actually fight the end boss to finish the game? Dammit developers, stop FORCING ME to play the game the way you want!!

[TrashMan]

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.

 

Then why is he even playing the game if he's only in it for the combat. There's other ames for that. Heck, let him paly super Mario or whatever.

 

If I want action I won't be tuning on my adventure games, I'll start a FPS or hack and slash.

If I want strategy and tactics I won't be turning on my FPS, I'll turn on my 4X or RTS.

 

This redicolous notion that a game should support playstyles that fall outside of the genre is redicolous.

 

You know the old saying - trying to satisfy everyone will satisfy no one.

[KhaineGB]

I personally dislike XP for quests only systems. When you're slaughtering through loads of mobs, that are there simply because they're random encounters or because they were put there to slow you down, it's annoying to know you're essentially getting NOTHING from that combat.

 

Having said that, I would like to point something out. Obsidian have stated they intend to have non-combat skills that will be useful. Ok, you can probably use those to get around combat and complete your quest, but surely you should get some kind of experience for using them in the first place? Maybe a "hybrid" style system would be a good idea... like your skills level as you use them (so combat would actually have a point, non-combat skills would level as you pick locks/sneak/craft/etc), while your actual character "level" (which might affect things like extra spells/heroic feats/hit points/ability scores/etc) goes off finishing quests.

 

OK, probably rambling now... but basically I think a flat levelling system off quests is a poor way to go. Just IMO.

[Humanoid]

An interesting but to an extent equally broken was DXHR's approach which penalised combat with significantly lowered XP - e.g. 10xp for a kill, 30xp for a non-lethal takedown, even if they were, in terms of execution, exactly the same except for what weapon you had equipped at the time. Just an observation, so to drift back on topic:

 

I'm trying not to be dismissive, but the combat experience issue to me is largely a nothing one. It's not *too* difficult to balance it for a 'proper' playthrough, if it is judged to be necessary for it to be implemented in the first place. But why? If the gameplay experience is broken down to mowing down hordes of mooks to facilitate the mowing down of tougher hordes of mooks, then to create a meaningful experience you need to have a mook progression system typical to A"RP"Gs like Diablo, which does bring significant balancing difficulties. The reverse of course is just mowing down mooks to facilitate mowing down more of the same mooks, in which case progression is not just unnecessary, but perhaps impossible, since in the course of this grinding, you haven't progressed the game state at all.

 

What's more of interest to me then, is the sidequest issue, since in this case you *are* progressing the gameworld, albeit laterally. I'm repeating a previous post, but they do tend to cause problems in that they tend to be the biggest factor in terms of early game level inflation, leading to further quest design needing to anticipate a large possible level range for the characters doing those quests, and so forth in a rapidly snowballing fashion. This tends to lead to undesirable 'fixes' such as Bethesda-style massive area-wide scaling. An example of a very inflationary sidequest would be the very-much-optional REPCONN ghoul facility in New Vegas. So what to do? I'd take a chainsaw and systematically dismember the scale of experience awarded by sidequests. But of course there still needs to be incentive to do those quests, which is the real problem here. To start with, ideas would go along the lines of having them modify your reputation in a way that significantly alters future quests, having them reward interesting but unessential loot (with power kept strictly in check), and having them meaningfully affect your relationship with various party members.

[Volourn]

So you want to lower the motivation to explore the world? Gaining xp and ph@t lewt are two reasons to do side quests along with your suggestions of party interaction, effecting other quests and whatnot). This stuff has been sued for ages and still works. Why fix something not broken?

 

Why do people feel that everyonme should be EXACTLY the same level at the EXACT time in the main plot? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a non linear game?

 

 

Afterall, if you have a mage PC and a warrior PC in BG2 you would get access to different quests, and loot on certain side quests. And, i don't the xp was perfectly even between the two.

 

Also, getting xp and loot for side quests is also a good way to reward the player for exploring 'off the beaten path' which is another aspect of this type of RPG.

 

But, hey, let's all be level 10 warriors with great sword +2 at end of game so its equally balanced for everybody. That'sm silly talk since party makeup will likely be different for everyone, and skills will be different for eveyone. Heck, even two fighters who have different weapons may actually have different experiences with the same fight against the same creature. Afterall, a fire based sword is gonna suck against fire creatures but a a fighter weilding an ice based sword will have a much easier time versus the same foe. IMAGINE THAT.

 

Let's reward exploring the game world, and encountering different foes, and using different abilties.

 

That's the way it should be.

[Humanoid]

If XP were the chief motivation to do anything in an RPG, it's probably not a good RPG. Progression can be expressed in other terms, both quantifiable ones like reputation and more abstract ones like modifying the game world. Both of those are just as strong, if not stronger, motivations for me to play RPGs in the manner that I do than whatever happens on the character sheet. Not saying the outcome should be zero, but if one were to chart all sources of XP in a spreadsheet, the majority would be in the mainline column.

 

Now the above is all well and good, but not, strictly speaking, an argument against 'standard' sidequest XP loading - it was just an argument that changing that status quo is not as 'harmful' as some may perceive. The argument is the tradeoff in which significantly reducing this loading helps improve the gameworld. This comes from:

a) Removing the need for heavyhanded scaling, if not any scaling altogether; and

b) Preserving the intended expected skill factors for aspects that are not scaled in the first place.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the gains of tweaking this loading, in my view, far outweigh the loss of the XP-as-a-reward mechanic this particular subset of the gameplay experience, especially considering the other possibilities in terms of outcomes assigned to these quests can be written such that they end up having a much more variable effect on subsequent content than that of simply arriving at that next quest a level or two higher.

 

For those who view XP as the primary driver, I'm happy enough to agree to disagree, I won't carry on about my off-topic rambling any further here.

 

 

P.S. Off on a tangent again, a common annoyance for me is the notion of absolute skill levels causing certain skills to be nigh-unusable at lower levels, such that points you put towards this skill are not for immediate use, but for some future payoff several levels away. This is particularly endemic to the stealth skill in many games, I find.

[TrashMan]

I personally dislike XP for quests only systems. When you're slaughtering through loads of mobs, that are there simply because they're random encounters or because they were put there to slow you down, it's annoying to know you're essentially getting NOTHING from that combat.

 

 

You're closer to your goal..how is that nothing?

 

I really don't get why so many people are like insecure childrenthat feel the need to be patted on the head and rewarded for EVERYTHING they do.

Obsessed with better LOOT, higher levels and stuff like that, instead of just roleplaying and enjoying the story.

 

What makes you think that you HAVE to be rewarded for everything you do?

Does a FPS reward you every time you snipe a guy off some hill?

Does Splinter Cell reward you every time you pass trough a room?

 

Why is it that people ignroe the journey and only think abotu what they can get?

[TrashMan]

So you want to lower the motivation to explore the world? Gaining xp and ph@t lewt are two reasons to do side quests along with your suggestions of party interaction, effecting other quests and whatnot). This stuff has been sued for ages and still works. Why fix something not broken?

 

 

Who sez it isn't broken? Isn't that entirely subjective?

 

What happened to exploring simply because you want to see whats out there?

 

When XP and loot become the only motivation, something has gone VERY wrong.

[septembervirgin]

I think the OP makes a genuinely good point. I also think it sounds as if she's driven by an imperative to communicate this point, as if the autumn is driving the winds with its name. The type and manner of disagreement she receives by some respondents must be frustrating and what might be even more banal is that these few seem accustomed to brushing away startling opinions with brusque manners. Netiquette?

 

In any case, I cannot begin to disagree with her point, its urgency perhaps, but not what she seems to feel is true.

 

I think questing is the point of this particular CRPG -- but it's not going to be the point of all CRPG, unless you confine the term to a traditional meaning. Are CRPG progressing to a point where they mirror certain ideal structures in MMORPG? Should some do this? No, I don't care if you'd buy the games that do, but will they? And will these structures be refined by the CRPG they appear in?

 

The earliest role-playing games took place with books and dice and no computer components. These games were tactical simulations of individual combatants that had a single pre-determined goal. A later development were pre-structured "levels" of improvement for each combatant as they became more accustomed to battle. Eventually, these "characters" (who were just combatants) could gain levels of improvement by gaining treasure.

 

Now, fast forwarding to the future, some people are wondering if characters might gain power through practicing their own specific crafts. It's not a new idea. It's not outside some game rules. All in all, it's high time computer games caught up to "dice and book" role-playing games. The problem is, computer game designers are sorting through a "formula" to see what works. A set of TV writers once felt they had a successful formula and were surprised when a newer TV writer comes along and broke the formula; that's an old story now. The new story is, MMO designers think LP-MUDs were a potent formula when in reality most LP-MUDs were drudge and boredom (there were hundreds of storyless variations of the basic LP-MUD and the ubiquitous mean dog found as a monster). Slightly less new is the formulaic way of designing CRPG which Dragon Age 2 parodies harshly and without regard to player comfort.

 

Project Eternity is not stating on outset that they'll break any formulas, but is rather trying to be the finest fading breath of the isometric CRPG, the last great glory building on the heyday of the isometric CRPG. We've all banded together, we are a gang of disagreeing internationals, and here we discuss this seed that will be planted in the soil of a beloved grove.

 

I don't see any resolution to questions of improvement though. Keep in mind, it's not just a question of time and money but also a question of affection. We're finding out what we like. I rather like Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Dark Sun: Shattered Lands, and Countdown to Doomsday. Temple of Elemental Evil will remain a sad favorite of mine, sad because it ends all too soon where it should've included so much more.

 

As to the OP: dear, I think we need subtler means to approach the matter. But there's alot of CRPG projects soon to come. This isn't the last.

Edited September 25, 2012 by septembervirgin

[PsychoBlonde]

As to the OP: dear, I think we need subtler means to approach the matter. But there's alot of CRPG projects soon to come. This isn't the last.

 

Subtle I ain't. But don't worry, being loud is part of my personality, it doesn't mean this particular issue is driving me any more insane than anything else does.

 

Granted, it is annoying when I say "Just a heads up, XP for questing doesn't let everyone play however they'd like" and the response is "Y U WANT XP FOR KILLZ NUB?!?" I don't. Heck the only MMO I've ever really liked is DDO, which only gives out xp for . . . questing. (Granted, a "quest" in DDO is not like a "quest" in most other games.) I don't even particularly care if *this* game decides to support my brother's playstyle. Sure, there will be other games. I just want people to be accurate in what they say.

[IcyDeadPeople]

As to the OP: dear, I think we need subtler means to approach the matter. But there's alot of CRPG projects soon to come. This isn't the last.

 

Subtle I ain't. But don't worry, being loud is part of my personality, it doesn't mean this particular issue is driving me any more insane than anything else does.

 

Granted, it is annoying when I say "Just a heads up, XP for questing doesn't let everyone play however they'd like" and the response is "Y U WANT XP FOR KILLZ NUB?!?" I don't. Heck the only MMO I've ever really liked is DDO, which only gives out xp for . . . questing. (Granted, a "quest" in DDO is not like a "quest" in most other games.) I don't even particularly care if *this* game decides to support my brother's playstyle. Sure, there will be other games. I just want people to be accurate in what they say.

 

I'd be pretty surprised if the devs decide to adopt an "XP for each quest" approach. Project Eternity doesn't sound like it will be a very linear game, judging by the limited information we've received so far. Seems extremely unlikely that it would fit into such a linear progression model.

 

My guess is that we will get XP each time we use a skill, or perhaps some other kind of progression mechanic based on souls.

Edited September 25, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[KhaineGB]

I personally dislike XP for quests only systems. When you're slaughtering through loads of mobs, that are there simply because they're random encounters or because they were put there to slow you down, it's annoying to know you're essentially getting NOTHING from that combat.

 

 

You're closer to your goal..how is that nothing?

 

I really don't get why so many people are like insecure childrenthat feel the need to be patted on the head and rewarded for EVERYTHING they do.

Obsessed with better LOOT, higher levels and stuff like that, instead of just roleplaying and enjoying the story.

 

What makes you think that you HAVE to be rewarded for everything you do?

Does a FPS reward you every time you snipe a guy off some hill?

Does Splinter Cell reward you every time you pass trough a room?

 

Why is it that people ignroe the journey and only think abotu what they can get?

 

Mindlessly slashing through mobs does not equal role-play and story.

 

If it did, Diablo would be the greatest RPG ever.

 

Sorry, but I'm used to old school Pen 'N' Paper RPG's. You get XP for killing mobs, doing stuff in-character, using your skills and completing quests. Killing mobs in a game without XP basically makes them nothing more than an artificial way of slowing you down while you try to progress the main story, or even a side story. As such, since I would get a reward if I were doing this in a game of Pathfinder or D&D 3.5, I'd quite like that in my PC game too.

 

That doesn't make me an insecure child simply because I'd like something present in older and popular RPG systems in a game I have backed/would most likely buy. Now, if you want your questions answered properly:

 

What makes you think that you HAVE to be rewarded for everything you do?

 

Everything I do? No. Killing creatures which, if you want to apply realism, would mean my characters skills are getting better? Yes please.

 

Does a FPS reward you every time you snipe a guy off some hill?

 

Depends on the FPS. A lot of them add to a "headshot" tally that will eventually give you an achievement and some kind of unlockable reward (Gears of War 3 and Borderlands 2 both do this, IIRC).

 

Does Splinter Cell reward you every time you pass trough a room?

 

Never played Splinter Cell. However, EverQuest 2 gives you a reward every time you visit a new area, so I think that counts (it gives you Level XP and Alternate Advancement XP if you're above level 10)

 

Not sure if you're just trying to troll me, or honestly think that "Quests only give XP" is actually acceptable.

[Gatt9]

 

Personally, I think the best system is one in which you can get xp for doing ANYTHING, and you, the player, get to pick whatever way is the most fun for you to level. Like decimating hordes of kobolds over and over? Fine. Go level up that way. Like solving puzzles and disarming traps? Fine. Go level up that way. Like crafting? Fine. Go level up that way.

 

 

You're 100% right here. A Quest-based system, like Mass Effect 2, rapidly becomes boring. It's highly linear and extremely contrived since you can't progress until performing some quest(s) you may not even be interested in doing, for no reason other than an arbitrary "This quest can't be done until you've done at least 4 other quests!". Railroading the player is always bad.

 

It also makes character progression nonsensical. I can kill 10,000,000 goblins and not get better with my sword. Hand one old guy a marble and suddenly my sword skills impoved.

 

The system you describe here is ideal. Different rewards for different solutions to every situation, inlcuding xp/kill, with varying levels of reward based on difficulty (Killing a dragon for his sword is a whole lot easier than talking the dragon into giving it to you).

 

You're closer to your goal..how is that nothing?

 

I really don't get why so many people are like insecure childrenthat feel the need to be patted on the head and rewarded for EVERYTHING they do.

Obsessed with better LOOT, higher levels and stuff like that, instead of just roleplaying and enjoying the story.

 

What makes you think that you HAVE to be rewarded for everything you do?

Does a FPS reward you every time you snipe a guy off some hill?

Does Splinter Cell reward you every time you pass trough a room?

 

Why is it that people ignroe the journey and only think abotu what they can get?

 

Your first problem is that you apparently don't realize that LARPsing is enjoyed by a very tiny minority, which is what you're advocating. Your second problem is that you apparently do not understand game design, because one of the fundamentals in game design is the reward mechanism.

[Gorth]

It also makes character progression nonsensical. I can kill 10,000,000 goblins and not get better with my sword.

That just means you are good at killing goblins, not necessarily good with a sword

 

Icewind Dale (was it 1 or 2?) handled it nicely by giving your character less and less xp, depending on how much of a challenge they provided.

[Shadenuat]

Getting 25 xp per lock/trap and 50 per using medicine skill in Fallout was nice, after completing Temple of Trials in the beginning, instead of getting level 2 for scorpions, get the same amount of xp from traps, locks, fixing well and healing yourself. Did't break the game for sure.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Shadenuat

[alanschu]

It also makes character progression nonsensical. I can kill 10,000,000 goblins and not get better with my sword. Hand one old guy a marble and suddenly my sword skills impoved.

 

This argument would hold weight if they were doing a "use to improve" system like Skyrim. As it stands now, with combat XP you can kill 10,000,000 goblins and... become better at talking to people.

[Luckmann]

Can someone link me to where they said that you'd only get experience for quests? Because if so, that is as disheartening as experience from combat.

[Valorian]

Icewind Dale (was it 1 or 2?) handled it nicely by giving your character less and less xp, depending on how much of a challenge they provided.

 

Yes, the XP reward for a kill should depend on the difference of the level between the killer and the killed and the specific challenge rating of the defeated enemy. For example, a level 7 creature with a challenge rating of +2 would count as a level 9 creature.

[Volourn]

"When XP and loot become the only motivation, "

 

Who claimed this? I surely didn't.

[PsychoBlonde]

Can someone link me to where they said that you'd only get experience for quests? Because if so, that is as disheartening as experience from combat.

 

It's in the Kickstarter update video where they talk about non-combat skills.

[PsychoBlonde]

It also makes character progression nonsensical. I can kill 10,000,000 goblins and not get better with my sword. Hand one old guy a marble and suddenly my sword skills impoved.

 

This argument would hold weight if they were doing a "use to improve" system like Skyrim. As it stands now, with combat XP you can kill 10,000,000 goblins and... become better at talking to people.

 

Any kind of realism argument never holds weight because the system isn't going to be realistic no matter what you do. It is abstract and representative not a simulation. Even the "use to improve" system makes no "sense" in this manner--why should casting Nighteye 5,000 times make me better at casting Invisibility? And why, after improving my Illusion, Stealth, Speechcraft, Blacksmithing, and Destruction skills should I level up and get to improve magic/stamina/health and select a new Enchanting perk?

[Redwulf]

My personal view is: I like getting XP for every orcish skull I cave in. Every time I imagine hearing a sickening crunch, I want to visualize my level up bar getting fuller. With every disembodied pig-nosed head I want to feel my mouse finger getting stronger from the experience. Every last eviscerated corpse I leave in my wake, I want to see "XXX" XP gained in the message bar. And every time I stand triumphant on the mounds of my enemies beneath me I want to yowl in glory, and soak up the XP rays. Yes, and when I defecate, later that night, I want to remember, eyes shining, the glorious experience I have gained that day when so many orcs lost their life blood. That is all that I ever wanted. And that is what I have personally lost. Hold me. Now.

[IcyDeadPeople]

Can someone link me to where they said that you'd only get experience for quests? Because if so, that is as disheartening as experience from combat.

 

It's in the Kickstarter update video where they talk about non-combat skills.

 

Wow, thanks for providing the source. I watched that video previously and didn't even notice. I recalled him mentioning you could gain XP by doing non combat activities, but I didn't hear the part where he says all the XP is from quests. As it wasn't mentioned in the written Update #7, I thought he was talking about XP rewards for using your skills.

 

Here is what Tim Cain says:

 

We also want to make sure that non-combat abilities can be used to avoid combat if that's what you want.

 

So, if you want to sneak past enemies or somehow find a way across a ruined bridge so you can avoid bandits on the side of the river, if that's what you want to do, we're going to make abilities that let you do that. And more importantly, when you do avoid combat, you're not going to get any less experience points in the game for doing so. We're not going to reward you for killing things, we're going to reward you for doing the quests that are laid out in the game. So if you decide to go through the game doing as little combat as possible, you'll level up just as fast as someone who kills everything that he encounters.

 

This would seem to present a huge challenge for the developers to design a way for the quest XP to take into account the fact that people can go around the map and do all kinds of different quests in different order.

 

If the game was a linear corridor cinematic game like Mass Effect, it would seem to be much easier to plan how much XP the player will receive for each quest, but from the limited information we've received about Project Eternity, it seems that the game will have a much more open map with more player agency in terms of where to go, which NPCs to associate with, which quests to take on, etc. Now I'm wondering if Obsidian will split up the game world into much smaller "acts" or "chapters," to allocate quest XP in a certain way.

Edited September 26, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[alanschu]

I'm not sure why people think that rewarding for completing objectives (whatever those may be) is somehow more appropriate or feasible with a more linear game.

[PsychoBlonde]

Getting 25 xp per lock/trap and 50 per using medicine skill in Fallout was nice, after completing Temple of Trials in the beginning, instead of getting level 2 for scorpions, get the same amount of xp from traps, locks, fixing well and healing yourself. Did't break the game for sure.

 

There was a major problem with this sort of thing in Fallout 3/Oblivion, though, which was that as you leveled--regardless of HOW you leveled and what skills you improved, you'd find yourself facing tougher enemies regardless of whether you were, in fact, any stronger in combat. I hate scaling as a mechanic, too, it's just one more example of devs trying to dictate to players how the game "ought" to be experienced.

 

The thing is, I don't really *mind* most mechanics if they're implemented well enough to be invisible, and if they add something to the game for people who are Not Me, by all means have em. When they're blatantly obvious and tiresomely repetitive, I get bored and cranky and start looking for something else to do.