Update #24: Less than 30 Hours to go! Life and Death, and Audio CD Soundtrack!

[Hugo Rune]

It's not so much the grinding, I think, but that, if you give XP for each kill and each task accomplished (like picking a lock, beating a speech challange,...) it becomes your best tactic to do them all. Like in FONV there were many locks that you could either pick or open via a computer terminal that you could hack. your best option was to hack into the computer but not open the lock, then pick the lock -> presto, double XP. This scenario repeats itself whenever there are multiple ways to accomplish a task. That's the weird/degenerate scenario Josh is talking about I think and I agree. I still would like to see XP per enemy killed but I know this has bugged me too in the past and I can't see another way to deal with it effectively, so I'm not bothered.

 

Edit: uh, seems I'm a little late with my answer...

Edited October 15, 2012 by Hugo Rune

[J.E. Sawyer]

Hmmm. I'm not sure about the XP thing, though. If for example in Baldur's Gate II I decided to kill Firkraag (and killing him wasn't associated with any quest), and I was not given any XP for that, I would be rather disappointed...I mean it's a bloody red dragon...it's extremely hard to kill him. I would guess my characters would have learned a thing or two in the process. Josh?

There's nothing wrong with defeating Firkraag being a quest or objective all in itself. That's what I meant before. There's nothing wrong with explicitly associating XP with defeating specific enemies or specific groups of monsters as part of a quest where it makes sense. If the quest is "clear the slums" and you're supposed to get rid of the kobolds, the goblins, and the orcs, you might be able to sneak/talk your way through that, but you're probably going to "get rid" of them with some magic missiles and axes to the face.

[Tychoxi]

I too was confused regarding when/what dealt damage to Stamina and/or Health!

Glad it was so rapidly clarified.

[shibby191]

Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about?

 

Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder.

 

I think what he's alluding to is un-fun "grinding" in a lot of games. For example in some games with encounter locations where monsters respawn and you get XP for killing each monster you could keep grinding that area and boost your levels quickly which could then lead you to be overpowered for the point in the story you're in. By keeping most XP quest based you remove the grinding aspect and keep the story moving.

 

Here's the thing - the bit you find "un-fun" is the bit I like. Not exclusively, but it's part of the fun for me.

 

Got it. Then this game may not be totally for you then. It's not been billed as a total just go "kick butt and slaughter monsters" thing. It's about the story. Witcher games had plenty of combat but it was mostly about the story. Heck, you might go 2 hours and not kill a single thing. So it's really what you want out of your game. I prefer more story centered games because they are so rare. Total hack and slash games are dime a dozen and plenty available. Story driven...not so much.

[Semper]

You can heal Stamina pretty easily. Priests can do it for a lot of folks, but fighters can self-replenish and paladins can bark orders at you until you suck it up and Deal With It. Health can't be restored by magic; it requires you to rest to get it back.

 

is exhausting in? like if your pc/companion hasn't slept for several days or is sick/encumbered, do they regenerate stamina at a slower rate?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Thanks for the answers Josh, that clears a lot up. I'll be honest, at the moment it doesn't sound like my cup of tea but I'm pretty set in my ways around stuff like that.

 

For me, part of the fun of the old games was wandering around, finding cool encounters, fighting and gaining power for me to tackle the next bit of the critical path. This seems like it's a step away from that.

We'll see how it plays. Nothing's set in stone. I've just observed too much post-quest Black Ops slaughter to believe that players are going to behave differently when they can squeeze 1xp out of a peasant's head.

[Monte Carlo]

With respect, how players behave in a computer game is a matter for them.

 

I've played a game with a paladin where I stole nothing in-game. My choice.

 

I've played a game where I've Chaotically-Neutralled and meta-gamed everything. My choice.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Monte Carlo

[norolim]

Hmmm. I'm not sure about the XP thing, though. If for example in Baldur's Gate II I decided to kill Firkraag (and killing him wasn't associated with any quest), and I was not given any XP for that, I would be rather disappointed...I mean it's a bloody red dragon...it's extremely hard to kill him. I would guess my characters would have learned a thing or two in the process. Josh?

There's nothing wrong with defeating Firkraag being a quest or objective all in itself. That's what I meant before. There's nothing wrong with explicitly associating XP with defeating specific enemies or specific groups of monsters as part of a quest where it makes sense. If the quest is "clear the slums" and you're supposed to get rid of the kobolds, the goblins, and the orcs, you might be able to sneak/talk your way through that, but you're probably going to "get rid" of them with some magic missiles and axes to the face.

Yes, but this, in the context I created with the dragon, would mean that in PE there would have to be a quest linked to every "dragon" that you have an option to kill, but don't have to. Do you think that giving relatively little XP for killing monsters, like in the Witcher games, would be comlpetely at odds with the vision you have in mind?

Edited October 15, 2012 by norolim

[kenup]

Damn Josh, you look very nerdy in this one.

 

For others, religious worship is a matter of karmic self-interest. Often, people believe that if an individual's soul arrives in the realm of a pleased god, the god will place that soul into the body of someone who will have a good life. To such believers, choosing to not worship or is to risk spiritual confusion and aimlessness in the afterlife. They speculate that the faithless are entered into a "lottery of souls" from which many will wind up no better -- or much worse -- than they did in their last life. Some of the same faiths also believe that religious apostasy or lax observance is a cause of soul splintering upon death, which many consider to be an even worse fate.

 

Can't wait for this to be subverted, or even better inverted in some way!

[mstark]

Lovely, lovely update. Lovely, lovely systems.

 

Agreeing with this wholeheartedly!

[SqueakyCat]

Then don't give experience for a 'peasant's head'.

 

For me, it takes the fun out of exploring and randomly encountering an interesting foe. I don't see why it can't be both - experience for objectives/goals and smaller experience for killing foes in the example I gave.

 

Edit: I'm willing to compromise, but this doesn't seem like a compromise. This is completely eliminating XP for killing foes.

Edited October 15, 2012 by SqueakyCat

[Skradacz]

Thanks for the answers Josh, that clears a lot up. I'll be honest, at the moment it doesn't sound like my cup of tea but I'm pretty set in my ways around stuff like that.

 

For me, part of the fun of the old games was wandering around, finding cool encounters, fighting and gaining power for me to tackle the next bit of the critical path. This seems like it's a step away from that.

We'll see how it plays. Nothing's set in stone. I've just observed too much post-quest Black Ops slaughter to believe that players are going to behave differently when they can squeeze 1xp out of a peasant's head.

I love you.

No homo.

 

Finally, no grinding.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Skradacz

[J.E. Sawyer]

With respect, how players behave in a computer game is a matter for them.

 

I've played a game with a paladin where I stole nothing in-game. My choice.

 

I've played a game where I've Chaotically-Neutralled and meta-gamed everything. My choice.

It's still the responsibility of designers to set up mechanics that don't screw with the player's desires. BTW, this sort of XP bias can work in ANY direction, not just combat. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution, you earned markedly less XP from mission to mission if you didn't stop to hack literally anything you came across -- even terminals for which you already had the password!

[Valorian]

Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about?

 

Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder.

 

I think what he's alluding to is un-fun "grinding" in a lot of games. For example in some games with encounter locations where monsters respawn and you get XP for killing each monster you could keep grinding that area and boost your levels quickly which could then lead you to be overpowered for the point in the story you're in. By keeping most XP quest based you remove the grinding aspect and keep the story moving.

 

But why would designers in their right mind design a role-playing story-driven game with respawning monsters.. and then go "ah, wow, this is grindable, let's remove kill xp".

It's dumb.

[Rabain]

You are forgetting one thing: that it is a battle/skirmish scenario you are talking about...not a duel. You are trying to rationalise, so let's imagine a real skirmish. And these tend to be fast and chaotic. When you kill an opponent, do you think his friends will just watch you lean over him drill a hole in his skull with your sword? No, as I see it, during a battle a participant that incapacitates an enemy will immediately look around and try to engage a standing opponent, because a standing opponent is much more deadly than an unconscious one. Because at any moment that standing foe can deal that decisive blow that will end your life. In a real skirmish you fight for your life, not XP. This is how it works, if you want to keep it real.

 

 

Actually a battle/skirmish is more likely to result in someone getting a sword in the head than a duel would. In a duel everyone is looking at the combat, so if someone is going to die, they could intervene by distracting the person about to perform the killing blow.

 

In a battle with multiple enemies it is easier for individual combats being overlooked for several seconds. Of course in a game that doesn't happen because we watch health bars and press pause to issue orders and respond to every circumstance.

 

But consider the logic of a priest being attacked by an enemy archer, the rest of the party are engaged with multiple foes. Meanwhile the rogue just lost all his stamina and is down. The rogues opponent then ignores the rogue and runs towards the priest or any other party member? And this always happens, in every fight? Much more likely the enemy stands on the rogues head, squishes his brains and then runs towards any other party member.

 

I guess once we see it in action we will get a feel for it, but on the face of it, it seems to me to be a much less realistic system than just having someone die and be resurrected. It depends in every instance on the enemy being stupid and ignoring the unconscious, every single time.

[mstark]

I'd be happy if there were "epic" monsters scattered around the world (think Firkraag) that you could kill, that would give exp without being linked to a quest.

 

If the monster was linked to a quest, you would either first have to find that quest to "unlock" that monster, or else it'd be possible to find the monster first, kill it, and break the quest... or complete it without being aware of it, which isn't ideal, because if you knew about the quest, you might have wanted to solve it in another way than killing. It'd risk becoming a bit stilted and artificial, just to prevent people from breaking the system.

 

Either way, rambling, and I'm sure the PE developers will solve it gallantly

[kahoshi]

If I might be so bold as to offer an idea, rather than tying every cool monster kill to a quest have the monsters just be there. The player wanders upon them and decides to kill them, maybe it doesn't give XP explicitly (since that seems what you are trying to avoid), but instead you take the monster's head or whatever and THAT starts a quest to take the head to an NPC for a reward of exp and whatever else.

 

Go even further, have the NPC offering the quest, but if the player isn't on the quest because they hadn't met the quest giver yet THEN the monster drops the item to start the quest.

 

Also needs to be some sort of punishment for killing innocent people, especially after completing a quest for them, without ruining the possibility of playing an evil character.

[Monte Carlo]

If I might be so bold as to offer an idea, rather than tying every cool monster kill to a quest have the monsters just be there. The player wanders upon them and decides to kill them, maybe it doesn't give XP explicitly (since that seems what you are trying to avoid), but instead you take the monster's head or whatever and THAT starts a quest to take the head to an NPC for a reward of exp and whatever else.

 

Go even further, have the NPC offering the quest, but if the player isn't on the quest because they hadn't met the quest giver yet THEN the monster drops the item to start the quest.

 

Also needs to be some sort of punishment for killing innocent people, especially after completing a quest for them, without ruining the possibility of playing an evil character.

 

We call that a self-licking lollipop. Why over-complicate it? NWN2 was great. Kill an orc at level 1 and get 50 XP. Kill one at level 10 and get none. It's simple.

[Huinehtar]

Thanks for updates and clarification. I like too this Stamina/Health approach, and I am not wrong it could be concerned by some forms of desease?

I appreciate cultural distinctions about necromancy (I think that a universe where necromancy is "really interesting for all people" or another where necromancers are parias, lacks something), in roleplay matters, it sounds really interesting! (I believe there are other some opinion conflicts)

[Cantousent]

Okay, I'm all for the stamina/health thing. Sounds great and I'm sure it will be intuitive. I'll live with whatever the devs do with the experience reward issue. Those aren't really big deals for me.

 

Instead, I want to ask about an issue that I actually care about quite a bit, and that's our actions. I agree that the devs should put things out there and let us decide for ourselves whether they're good or evil. Of course, the world isn't a vacuum, so the NPCs should also give us their opinions about our actions. Fair enough. I make the PC do something I think is good, the townsfolk tell me it's evil, and then I can reaffirm, reassess, or ignore their opinions. Of course, I might have to react to their opinions if they then refuse to open their shops to me or even come after me with pitchforks and fiery brands.

 

The thing is, I know Obsidian can make great options for those folks who want to play a real bastard. I also know they can create options for folks who want to be good decent citizens of the game world. However, I seem to see most folks clamoring for more opportunities to be 'evil,' or other folks who want there to be no such thing as good or evil in the game. The thing is, the devs will still have to put in options that range from absolute self-interest to heroic selflessness. Call it good or evil. Call it nice guy or jerk. Call it whatever, there *will* be good and evil options in the game. I just want to make sure that everything isn't all about currying favor with the evil-option folks. I want options to be a decent person in the game world that don't follow the lawful stupid idea of decency.

 

I actually want most of the story to convey the moral uncertainty that is part and parcel of human interaction. I've been saying that for a long time, but I get the impression that a lot of folks want to address the past failings of previous games to depict the nuances of how we view the rightness or wrongness of our actions by saying that nothing is right or wrong at all. That's not how anyone I personally know acts in real life. There is no-one who can't usually determine whether one action would be better than another, and typically for moral reasons. I want shades of grey like other folks, but I also want some pitch black and some blinding white every now and then. I'm perfectly happy if the devs leave it up to the players to duke it out whether the 'pitch black' or the 'blinding white' option is really 'good.'

[Ieo]

With respect, how players behave in a computer game is a matter for them.

 

I've played a game with a paladin where I stole nothing in-game. My choice.

 

I've played a game where I've Chaotically-Neutralled and meta-gamed everything. My choice.

It's still the responsibility of designers to set up mechanics that don't screw with the player's desires. BTW, this sort of XP bias can work in ANY direction, not just combat. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution, you earned markedly less XP from mission to mission if you didn't stop to hack literally anything you came across -- even terminals for which you already had the password!

 

For the world monsters per exploration--

 

There could be different enemy types granting different xp as well. "Epic" class enemy wouldn't be linked to any quest, for example, but give good xp for the challenge. "Common" enemies could give minimal world-kill xp. "Trivial" creatures, even NPCs, would give no xp and must be linked to quests. Not sure how that would work out in the UI, though, in terms of identification--or perhaps it's something discovered only after the fact.

[Semper]

Yes, but this, in the context I created with the dragon, would mean that in PE there would have to be a quest linked to every "dragon" that you have an option to kill, but don't have to.

 

what's wrong with a hidden quest that only appears in your journal after killing the great evil providing xp? the journal entry explains the backstory of the monster and the amount and detail of info could also depend on your lore skill. btw even if there won't be xp for killing special encounters there probably will be loot serving as reward.

[Piccolo]

For the world monsters per exploration--

 

There could be different enemy types granting different xp as well. "Epic" class enemy wouldn't be linked to any quest, for example, but give good xp for the challenge. "Common" enemies could give minimal world-kill xp. "Trivial" creatures, even NPCs, would give no xp and must be linked to quests. Not sure how that would work out in the UI, though, in terms of identification--or perhaps it's something discovered only after the fact.

I think this is a good compromise.

[aVENGER]

It's still the responsibility of designers to set up mechanics that don't screw with the player's desires. BTW, this sort of XP bias can work in ANY direction, not just combat. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution, you earned markedly less XP from mission to mission if you didn't stop to hack literally anything you came across -- even terminals for which you already had the password!

 

Yeah, silly stuff like that is why I prefer goal-based XP systems.

 

It makes no sense to resolve a single quest through stealth (i.e. steal a quest item), then diplomacy (talk the guards into giving the item to you) and finally combat (kill the guards) and get the XP award three times. In a goal-based system, you get the XP once you complete the main goal (get the item) but how you accomplish that is entirely up to you. I'm glad that you and Tim seem to be favoring this approach as well.

[kahoshi]

We call that a self-licking lollipop. Why over-complicate it? NWN2 was great. Kill an orc at level 1 and get 50 XP. Kill one at level 10 and get none. It's simple.

 

simple =/= better