XP only for Questing: Some Observations

[curryinahurry]

I just watched the video; Tim Cain doesn't say "quest only" at any time. He states that we will be rewarded not for killing things but for completing quests. I take that to mean within the context of quests, only. Since exploration and using abilities outside of combat are also mentioned, then there will be other mechanisms to develop skills and gain experience ( Also confirmed by others on this thread (and I see posted by IcyDeadPeople).

[Humanoid]

I'm also not sure why people think that if a game isn't linear, it's totally going to be Elder Scrolls or GTA-type open go-anywhere-you-like-with-no-possible-negative-outcome as soon as the 'tutorial' section is done.

[IcyDeadPeople]

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.

 

The only videogames I've played where the XP is earned from quests have all been games with a more linear design.

 

Let's say there are 200-300 quests in the game, which is extremely optimistic, comparable to the number of quests in a huge open world TES game with a massive budget, for example. That means you must decide in advance how much XP the player will gain from each. If you have absolutely no idea about the order in which the player will complete these quests, how would you decide how much XP to reward for each?

 

Even with an optimistic estimate of the total number of quests, there are still very few total quests compared to the total number of monsters, for example (kill based XP), or the total number of opportunities to use your skills (for skill use XP), so the amount of XP you earn from each quest has a huge impact. The problem becomes even more pronounced if there are only 50 quests, for example.

 

If this were a linear corridor cinematic game, you would have a pretty good idea what level you expect the player to be when they complete each quest or enter each new level.

 

It seems like this quest XP approach will present some design challenges, but I've greatly enjoyed every Obsidian game I've played so far and I'm certain this dev team knows exactly what they're doing and will be iterating and dedicating resources to balancing the character progression. I just have no idea how they will handle it. Perhaps many of the quests will be level scaled, with scaled XP rewards?

Edited September 26, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[Gatt9]

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.

 

They really don't have a choice if they're going with quest-based experience. The system is inherently linear, it's not possible to implement it in any way that isn't a figurative corridor. The only way players can do level 10 quests is if they do level 5 quests. You cannot bypass it in any way.

 

It's a massive error, and knowing Obsidian, I'm guessing they'll switch to a Fallout system before too long. It's one of those ideas that may sound great on paper, but once you implement it and see the end result, it won't look as good. I doubt Obsidian is going to want such a highly linear system.

 

Experience only through questing has never had a viable implementation outside of linear narratives, or systems like ME2 and ME3 where the "Leveling" doesn't actually do anything.

[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.

 

They really don't have a choice if they're going with quest-based experience. The system is inherently linear, it's not possible to implement it in any way that isn't a figurative corridor. The only way players can do level 10 quests is if they do level 5 quests. You cannot bypass it in any way.

 

It's a massive error, and knowing Obsidian, I'm guessing they'll switch to a Fallout system before too long. It's one of those ideas that may sound great on paper, but once you implement it and see the end result, it won't look as good. I doubt Obsidian is going to want such a highly linear system.

 

Experience only through questing has never had a viable implementation outside of linear narratives, or systems like ME2 and ME3 where the "Leveling" doesn't actually do anything.

 

I wouldn't quite write it off just yet. These folks are really smart and they've worked on so many great RPGs over the years, perhaps they have come up with some ingenious new approach to character progression to be explained more in a future update.

[PsychoBlonde]

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.

 

It's not, but they're stuck in a paradigm where you get rewarded based on how "difficult" it is to complete a given quest, so they're thinking that one of two things will happen:

 

1. You won't *really* have much choice about where to go because you won't have any hope of accomplishing certain quests until you do a bunch of lower-level quests in order to level up.

2 You can go where you want and do things in any order but the game will feel horribly unbalanced/schizophrenic because one moment you're fighting the Doom Squadron of Doomtown and getting 500 xp and the next you're killing rats for some old lady and getting 1500 xp.

 

So, in their minds, the solutions are:

 

1. Linear game

2. *barf* "scaling".

 

However, neither of those are completely necessary. For instance, this problem could be solved by having each general area of the game contain numerous minor quest objectives that turn into higher-level quest objectives depending on what level you are when you arrive there and pick up the quest. For instance, if you arrive there at level 1, you get a quest from Jimbob the Farmer to investigate his fields at night because somebody's been creeping around the place and killing his chickens. If you show up at level 3, the situation has progressed into a different quest: someone was killing his chickens, and now his daughter has disappeared. (All the clues from the Chicken Quest still exist, and can help you find where the daughter has been taken off to--a bandit lair in the woods.) If you arrive at level 5, the bandits have sacrificed the girl to raise some Evil Sorcerer, who you know have to deal with(but still, the clues from the whole chicken-killing quest are still there and important), and if you arrive at level 10 or above, the Evil Sorcerer has succeeded in summoning some kind of Badass Demon you now have to deal with. It's not scaling in that you just fight the same bandits but they have more HP and do more damage--the quest actually *changes* and the denouement is still level-appropriate. And, it doesn't have to be linear--you can arrive whenever you please.

 

One suggestion I would have about a system of this kind, however, would be that levels ought to all take the same amount of XP to progress and you should get the same amount of XP for completing a given quest no matter what level you do it at. Also, you wouldn't want to base your loot rewards off the level of the quest, either, which would mean you'd want to tune your gear system more toward the concept that better gear = having more gear: more different bonuses to pick from, the ability to put a magic item in every slot on every party member, having a stock of potions, scrolls, wands, charms, etc. This would be a horrible system if a.) it meant that in order to get some super-powerful items, you had to "hold" specific quests until you were at the max level, or b.) you could do a given quest at the lowest possible level and still get the +5 Vorpal Greatsword of Badassitude. That's not to say that you can't HAVE the +5 Vorpal Greatsword of Badassitude, just that, say, instead of getting it as a quest reward, you MAKE it by destroying 10 other magic items of your choice. Or by getting all 10 pieces of it. Lots of options for doing this sort of thing well.

[curryinahurry]

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to post the question:

 

"I know this has been answered by implication, but will the PCs be gaining experience only for achieving objectives or will they also gain experience situationally by picking locks and killing monsters and other skill based actions in the game?"

 

Feargus: "You will get XP for both - Tim might have covered that in Update 7 (not totally sure thought)." This answers the question for me. I prefer it done differently, but it's the way it is."

 

As I stated above, this has answered by Feargus and posted by othrs; it seems from this that questing won't be the only way to get experience / develop skills

[IcyDeadPeople]

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to post the question:

 

"I know this has been answered by implication, but will the PCs be gaining experience only for achieving objectives or will they also gain experience situationally by picking locks and killing monsters and other skill based actions in the game?"

 

Feargus: "You will get XP for both - Tim might have covered that in Update 7 (not totally sure thought)." This answers the question for me. I prefer it done differently, but it's the way it is."

 

Feargus said he prefers it done differently? Or was that someone else who said that part?

[Valorian]

I just watched the video; Tim Cain doesn't say "quest only" at any time. He states that we will be rewarded not for killing things but for completing quests. I take that to mean within the context of quests, only. Since exploration and using abilities outside of combat are also mentioned, then there will be other mechanisms to develop skills and gain experience ( Also confirmed by others on this thread (and I see posted by IcyDeadPeople).

 

So if my party happens to kill a mummy in a random isolated crypt that is 5 levels above us, but is not tied to any quest or "objective" ... we'd get no XP, even if we barely survived.

But if my party talks a peasant (2 dialogue clicks, 2 skill distribution clicks) into saving a cat from a tree (talk skills!!) ... we'd get XP. That's neat... Not.

[curryinahurry]

I think that was Cantoussent's interjection with a misplaced quotation mark at the end.

[curryinahurry]

I just watched the video; Tim Cain doesn't say "quest only" at any time. He states that we will be rewarded not for killing things but for completing quests. I take that to mean within the context of quests, only. Since exploration and using abilities outside of combat are also mentioned, then there will be other mechanisms to develop skills and gain experience ( Also confirmed by others on this thread (and I see posted by IcyDeadPeople).

 

So if my party happens to kill a mummy in a random isolated crypt that is 5 levels above us, but is not tied to any quest or "objective" ... we'd get no XP, even if we barely survived.

But if my party talks a peasant (2 dialogue clicks, 2 skill distribution clicks) into saving a cat from a tree (talk skills!!) ... we'd get XP. That's neat... Not.

 

Again, I don't believe that is what implied. I don't want to speak for the game designers, but I believe an offshoot area would be treated as separate from the main quest path and likely generate its own rewards. How you deal with the mummy; fight, charm, sneak past into the treasure vault, will net you the same xp rewards within the context of the encounter design.

 

An offshoot area could also be turned pretty easily into a mini-quest if, lets say the tunnel leading to it is unlocked via the use of a skill like stonecraft or mining. Then you get a mini-objective to explore (pretty much how the SOZ world map treated these things).

[Humanoid]

Feels like a lot of the issue some may have with the non-scaling, limited XP reward system is down to equating a progressive system to a linear one. It's natural to advance the plot in *a* sequential order, which is not the same as saying that it's necessary to progress everyone down the one same singular sequential order.

 

I would also argue that it would add some sort of dynamicism to sidequests (which as I've argued prior, should provide minimal XP gain) to have both dependencies and resolutions tied to your progress in the main plot, instead of being a completely self-contained "guy who stands there from the start of the game right to the end waiting for you to happen to pass by". This is a benefit both on the narrative side, avoiding the sense of sidequests being unrelated busywork, and on the mechanical side, of being able to at least approximate the PC's expected ability levels at a given point in the game.

 

 

 

Now even if one disagrees that the above path is not a desirable one to take, it remains that increasing the granularity of XP awards, be it in kill or skill XP, does not affect the problem of anticipating player level in any meaningful way in terms of actually designing the game. What it does do it just add a method for the player to attempt a workaround by the act of grinding. I would say that if that situation had occured in a 'natural' playthrough, then some proper refactoring of the progression curve would be the solution, not that "grind some more" band-aid.

[Gromnir]

"if you got loads of xp awards for combat, but less opportunities for other activities"

 

The one being ridiculous is the one pretending that i claimed I wanted such a situation. Nowhere did I ask to receive xp only or mostly from combat. Don't be silly.

 

are you complete insane?

 

silly question.

 

look, combat is gonna be prevalent in the game. duh. in a moronic and bassackwards system o' xp awards, it will not be difficult to find occasions to be awarding xp for combat.... but what about sneaky or diplomacy or... whatever. instead of the complex job o' trying to give different players equivalent xp opportunities ('cause if you don't, people will reasonably feel as if playing non-combatant focused is an xp punishment,) the developers need only give uniform quest xp to be guaranteeing that nobody gets slighted.

 

complex and easily broken calculus so that vol gets a warm-fuzzy every time he kills an ork or opens a lock, versus the simplicity and elegance o' quest-based rewards? really folks, this is a no-brainer. let the developers spend their efforts developing gameplay content instead of wasting a second on ad hoc models o' xp award/

 

HA! Good Fun!

[curryinahurry]

Feels like a lot of the issue some may have with the non-scaling, limited XP reward system is down to equating a progressive system to a linear one. It's natural to advance the plot in *a* sequential order, which is not the same as saying that it's necessary to progress everyone down the one same singular sequential order.

 

I would also argue that it would add some sort of dynamicism to sidequests (which as I've argued prior, should provide minimal XP gain) to have both dependencies and resolutions tied to your progress in the main plot, instead of being a completely self-contained "guy who stands there from the start of the game right to the end waiting for you to happen to pass by". This is a benefit both on the narrative side, avoiding the sense of sidequests being unrelated busywork, and on the mechanical side, of being able to at least approximate the PC's expected ability levels at a given point in the game.

 

 

 

Now even if one disagrees that the above path is not a desirable one to take, it remains that increasing the granularity of XP awards, be it in kill or skill XP, does not affect the problem of anticipating player level in any meaningful way in terms of actually designing the game. What it does do it just add a method for the player to attempt a workaround by the act of grinding. I would say that if that situation had occured in a 'natural' playthrough, then some proper refactoring of the progression curve would be the solution, not that "grind some more" band-aid.

 

I would be all for a system like that. I have mentioned on other threads how starting down a quest path can potentially lead to offshoot quests or uncover deeper layers. There is a way; say within the faction system Obsidian is developing, to tie this into a central theme or main quest, that would be fine. I would like some form of overland exploration and mini quests to remain however, even if they don't net tons of experience.

[Valorian]

I'd use the term "grinding" only if there is an unlimited pool of monsters to kill (respawns/random encounters), but I hope this isn't going to happen.

[Humanoid]

I would extend it beyond that personally, as scouring the map methodically looking for every possible XP-bag/goblin in the game is at the least no more desirable than running around hoping for random encounter experience (a'la Final Fantasy), and probably much worse. Casting my mind way back to the very start of Fallout 1: killing every single rat in the cave you start out in: not compelling gameplay in any sense of the word - I'd very much call that grinding.

 

I would certainly hope that in a typical playthrough of a game, the player encounter only a minority of the actual possible individual foes in the game - not in terms of variety, but in terms of quantity.

[Valorian]

I would extend it beyond that personally, as scouring the map methodically looking for every possible XP-bag/goblin in the game is at the least no more desirable than running around hoping for random encounter experience (a'la Final Fantasy), and probably much worse.

 

I don't see how is it much worse, or bad at all or not desirable. Would you say the same thing about a party that tries to avoid combat at all costs on all occasions? Probably not.

What if someone wants to roleplay a group of barbarians who want to kill as many things as possible to get better at what they love... combat?

Or if someone wants to explore every single square km of the world (and obviously kill hostile encounters)? I can't see how that shouldn't be desirable.

[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.

 

The only videogames I've played where the XP is earned from quests have all been games with a more linear design.

 

How do you define a linear design? Do you consider Bloodlines to be linear?

 

Let's say there are 200-300 quests in the game, which is extremely optimistic, comparable to the number of quests in a huge open world TES game with a massive budget, for example. That means you must decide in advance how much XP the player will gain from each. If you have absolutely no idea about the order in which the player will complete these quests, how would you decide how much XP to reward for each?

 

How do they decide how much XP to reward for quests normally? What I don't understand is, why is it any different?

 

Even with an optimistic estimate of the total number of quests, there are still very few total quests compared to the total number of monsters, for example (kill based XP), or the total number of opportunities to use your skills (for skill use XP), so the amount of XP you earn from each quest has a huge impact. The problem becomes even more pronounced if there are only 50 quests, for example.

 

If this were a linear corridor cinematic game, you would have a pretty good idea what level you expect the player to be when they complete each quest or enter each new level.

 

It seems like this quest XP approach will present some design challenges, but I've greatly enjoyed every Obsidian game I've played so far and I'm certain this dev team knows exactly what they're doing and will be iterating and dedicating resources to balancing the character progression. I just have no idea how they will handle it. Perhaps many of the quests will be level scaled, with scaled XP rewards?

 

 

I still am not understanding why a dev would need to haev a good idea what level they expect a player to be with quest only experience, but apparently don't need to know this information in other situations?

[TrashMan]

So if my party happens to kill a mummy in a random isolated crypt that is 5 levels above us, but is not tied to any quest or "objective" ... we'd get no XP, even if we barely survived.

But if my party talks a peasant (2 dialogue clicks, 2 skill distribution clicks) into saving a cat from a tree (talk skills!!) ... we'd get XP. That's neat... Not.

 

For any enemy you run across the goal can be as simple as "survive the encounter".

You survived - you get XP.

[Gromnir]

I just watched the video; Tim Cain doesn't say "quest only" at any time. He states that we will be rewarded not for killing things but for completing quests. I take that to mean within the context of quests, only. Since exploration and using abilities outside of combat are also mentioned, then there will be other mechanisms to develop skills and gain experience ( Also confirmed by others on this thread (and I see posted by IcyDeadPeople).

 

So if my party happens to kill a mummy in a random isolated crypt that is 5 levels above us, but is not tied to any quest or "objective" ... we'd get no XP, even if we barely survived.

But if my party talks a peasant (2 dialogue clicks, 2 skill distribution clicks) into saving a cat from a tree (talk skills!!) ... we'd get XP. That's neat... Not.

 

...

 

if your argument was that ridiculous quests such as clearing rats from tavern basements or saving cats from trees should be avoided in eternity, we would agree, but apparently you chose to beat the stuffing out of a strawman to make some kinda point about quest-based xp awards. most puzzling.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 26, 2012 by Gromnir

[TrashMan]

The problems you guys postulate don't come from quest(or goal) - based XP.... it comes from power scaling.

 

If the level of challenge doesn't change significantly with level (in other words, if you dont tbecome a demigod of destruction once you go up a level compared to the previous level), balancing automaticly becomes MUCH easier.

[teknoman2]

let me give an example. in the De'Arnise hold in BG2, you could make a dogmeat stew and then sneak it into the uberhulk feeding cell, clearing the way without fighting. however, after that you could still kill the uberhulks for the extra xp. had there been an objective based xp system, then you would get X xp for passing the uberhulks no matter the method. so if you used the meat you would gain nothing by killing them afterwards, thus avoiding powerplay.

the problem of this system however is in the fact that you will accept all quests, no matter what kind of character you play, in order to get xp. so if you are a psycho who likes killing things for the fun of it, you will still accept the quest to go fetch a bottle of wine for the farmer. if you feel that the guy you need to kill has a quest to give you, you wont kill him for it and so on.

to avoid this you would need a complex system that would determine, based on your actions, who will come to give you a quest and who wont. you cant have a peasant go to a stuck up super arrogant mage who considers peasants useless insects, and ask him to save his daughter from bandits for free. this NPC will simply not give you the quest if you are that kind of person

[Rabain]

Dragon Age Origins would have been 10 times better if it had less quests and more areas or at least it felt like the areas only opened up by attaining a quest. BG1 had the best system in my opinion, gave you a certain amount of freedom while still channelling you through the main questline (cloakwood etc).

 

PST kind of dumped combat XP in favor of quest XP, yes there was combat XP but dialog choices rewarded bigger chunks. Still there wasn't necessarily a quest attached to speaking to everyone.

 

I'd feel very railroaded by a system that required a quest to get any XP.

[Humanoid]

That's for a very rigid and literal interpretation of a 'quest' - there's sort of a disconnect going on here between that reading and a broader one of "the accomplishing of objectives".

[TrashMan]

the problem of this system however is in the fact that you will accept all quests, no matter what kind of character you play, in order to get xp.

 

Wut?

What gives you that idea? A power-player might do that, but a roleplayer won't.

 

Besides, a power-player would accept any quest ANYWAY.