XP Sharing

[elminster]

Player A: Kills a group of ogres that have been terrorizing the countryside for years and gets the stolen quest item. He spends a fair amount of time defeating the ogres and using a variety of combat tacticts. These ogres won't be terrorizing anyone ever again.

 

Player B: Sneaks past the ogres and gets the stolen quest item. Ogres are still alive and kicking and killing peasants. Sneaking past them took a lot less time and skill than killing them. / Bribes them by clicking a dialogue option to go somewhere else. They keep killing peasants at the new place.

 

XP reward for both cases: Same. Why in the hell?

 

Isn't it a custom to give experience in PnP to players who use their character's skills?

 

And I don't agree its harder to kill than it is to sneak. Every situation is different. It might even be harder to talk your way through the situation (a more fitting test to 'Bard' characters than butchering) than either sneaking or killing.

 

I think in the same way. First of all, sneaking is often not the alternative, but speaking. F.e. use your charismatic skills to persuade someone. The scene with the ogres is therefore not the most common one. Second, they are enough figths in a RPG. Why not mixing in a few other ways, who are creative, sometimes humorous and nonviolant?

[Valorian]

It is harder to kill a tough encounter than to sneak past it or click a persuade option.

Only if the alternative paths are not designed in accordance with their intended difficulty. Sneaking past a major boss fight should be an interesting experience on its own. Perhaps even challenging, with something more complex than pass/fail. Same goes for a dialogue encounter.

 

Sadly, I haven't seen (many) examples of "challenging" sneaking or persuade dialogue options in party based RPGs.

Even if they are challenging, by choosing such options you have a situation where demons/undeads/monsters are left alive and will continue killing innocent people. Saving lives by killing them should be rewarded with extra xp (kill xp).

[Tale]

Sadly, I haven't seen (many) examples of "challenging" sneaking or persuade dialogue options in party based RPGs.

Even if they are challenging, by choosing such options you have a situation where demons/undeads/monsters are left alive and will continue killing innocent people. Saving lives by killing them should be rewarded with extra xp (kill xp).

I'm not sure XP is supposed to represent general heroism. Should the player lose XP for himself killing townsfolk?

 

It should be for overcoming challenges. Monsters threatening townsfolk can be a challenge and if they're killing people, that should be an XP granting quest of its own, not just taking a necklace.

[Valorian]

Sadly, I haven't seen (many) examples of "challenging" sneaking or persuade dialogue options in party based RPGs.

Even if they are challenging, by choosing such options you have a situation where demons/undeads/monsters are left alive and will continue killing innocent people. Saving lives by killing them should be rewarded with extra xp (kill xp).

 

I'm not sure XP is supposed to represent general heroism. Should the player lose XP for himself killing townsfolk?

 

It should be for overcoming challenges. Monsters threatening townsfolk can be a challenge and if they're killing people, that should be an XP granting quest of its own, not just taking a necklace.

 

XP represents a variety of things. Quest xp clearly shows that. So, should you get xp for things only when you get asked by someone to do something? I think not.

 

Killing someone/something that wants to kill you is an achievement on its own that deserves bonus xp.

 

When he kills townsfolk himself he loses reputation which usually ends up in indirect xp loss.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Valorian

[Tale]

XP represents a variety of things. Quest xp clearly shows that. So, should you get xp for things only when you get asked by someone to do something? I think not.

A quest isn't defined by a quest giver. A quest is defined by the challenges.

 

Killing someone/something that wants to kill you is an achievement on its own that deserves bonus xp.

So is avoiding it should it seek you out or be in your way. The flight from the ringwraiths was no small feat. The death of the Witch-King was anti-climactic by comparison.

[elminster]

Sadly, I haven't seen (many) examples of "challenging" sneaking or persuade dialogue options in party based RPGs.

Even if they are challenging, by choosing such options you have a situation where demons/undeads/monsters are left alive and will continue killing innocent people. Saving lives by killing them should be rewarded with extra xp (kill xp).

 

I'm not sure XP is supposed to represent general heroism. Should the player lose XP for himself killing townsfolk?

 

It should be for overcoming challenges. Monsters threatening townsfolk can be a challenge and if they're killing people, that should be an XP granting quest of its own, not just taking a necklace.

 

XP represents a variety of things. Quest xp clearly shows that. So, should you get xp for things only when you get asked by someone to do something? I think not.

 

Killing someone/something that wants to kill you is an achievement on its own that deserves bonus xp.

 

When he kills townsfolk himself he loses reputation which usually ends up in indirect xp loss.

 

I think its not a problem to get much experience for killing an evil monster. But why not giving much exp for unconventional, in my opinion even my interesting ways as sneaking and discussing? Its still not possible for all figths, so where is the problem?

[Valorian]

 

A quest isn't defined by a quest giver. A quest is defined by the challenges.

 

A quest is defined by the quest giver. The challenge is defined by the designers. Killing tough enemies is challenging.

 

So is avoiding it should it seek you out or be in your way. The flight from the ringwraiths was no small feat.

 

Avoiding is certainly not the best way to deal with problems. When you eliminate the source of the problem you don't need to fear it'll "seek you out" again.

[ArchBeast]

And what about other opions than Sneak/kill/persuade ?

 

I think that poioning food, make some king of ritual (even sacrefice), learn new spell lets say "lifing wood" and let threes eate this ogres or other. Even making a hudge BOMB and giving to ogre telling him this is a watermelon, even making a special silver-sword for fighting werewolf boss sound good.

 

In Vampire Masquarede Bloodlines you don't get EXP for killing, you gain exp by makeing progress in quests or obraining important informations like "Your companion steals from you" or "Trolls are weeker when they encounter sunligh, vampires get killd by it"

 

But most of all (the best example off gaining exp) is when you encounter 2 or more hostile to ech other groups. In Exp=kill games you will gain max exp only if you micro fight to situation where you or your team kills each member of every group. exampe :

 

Bandits, trolls, your team. Bandits whant to kill you and rob you, they defending aginst trolls, trolls whant to eat bandit kebab and salad maked of your team, you and you team want to survive. MAX exp you will gain only if every bandit gets killd by your team and trolls only by your team .. why ? It's stupid and frustrating.

 

Even if bandits are not hostalie for you ( you persuade them ) and 2 grup are fighting 1 you can't fully let bandits hepl you team becouse if ewen 1 bandit kill 1 troll you lose exp.

 

bisades takling and fight about what is more dificult fighing or speaking is foolish becouse WE don't now the rules of it in P:E mayby sneaking is simple mayby even sneaking behind drunk troll is hard, mayby figing a dragon is easy mayby it's life fight.

[Valorian]

Sadly, I haven't seen (many) examples of "challenging" sneaking or persuade dialogue options in party based RPGs.

Even if they are challenging, by choosing such options you have a situation where demons/undeads/monsters are left alive and will continue killing innocent people. Saving lives by killing them should be rewarded with extra xp (kill xp).

 

I'm not sure XP is supposed to represent general heroism. Should the player lose XP for himself killing townsfolk?

 

It should be for overcoming challenges. Monsters threatening townsfolk can be a challenge and if they're killing people, that should be an XP granting quest of its own, not just taking a necklace.

 

XP represents a variety of things. Quest xp clearly shows that. So, should you get xp for things only when you get asked by someone to do something? I think not.

 

Killing someone/something that wants to kill you is an achievement on its own that deserves bonus xp.

 

When he kills townsfolk himself he loses reputation which usually ends up in indirect xp loss.

 

I think its not a problem to get much experience for killing an evil monster. But why not giving much exp for unconventional, in my opinion even my interesting ways as sneaking and discussing? Its still not possible for all figths, so where is the problem?

 

The problem is that some would like to cut out kill xp completely. That's what I'm against.

 

And I'm all for giving xp for unconventional problem solving, I just believe it's not necessary to give equal amounts in all situations.

[ArchBeast]

Avoiding is certainly not the best way to deal with problems. When you eliminate the source of the problem you don't need to fear it'll "seek you out" again.

 

Sometimes IS here examples :

 

1. You encouner a powerfull killer-vampire when you have 1 or 3 lvl, and hi want tu suck you dry, the only posibility for not seeing "Game Over" mayby not fight but avoiding it, and when you have 30 lvl come back and deal with him.

 

2. Killing someone (lets say gang lord) may bring not only revange on you but revange from this gang on innocent people. Somtimes consequenses of "killing" someone can make more damage than atual.

 

3. I suggest you tu play Witcher, there are planty of decisions where you not chose God or evil. Some times you must accept lesser evil then faceing bigger one.

 

4. If you even encounter a Big Evil an there are no consequenses (at last nobydy will hunt you for that) you may not obtain important information if you don't make a deal with him.

 

5. If you have no intrest in making world better (you plaing as someone EVIL) this will not consern you if he lives or not.

 

6. "Pure evil" is a little bit rare consept becouse the most of characters in game thinks that they are doing something good, you may convince them that they wrong, and they can change or even provide something for your "mercy"

Edited October 12, 2012 by ArchBeast