Are you for or against gaining experience points only for completing objectives?

[Captain Shrek]

Obsidian now has the chance to deconstruct the tropes and conventions of CRPGs and do something new which is rooted into the traditional rpgs (IE in this case). I would applaud the goal oriented XP and it would actually make all the possible ways to solve quests and goals equal instead of "I'm gonna just kill 'em all because I get the most exp out of that".

Obsidian Entertainment and our legendary game designers Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, and Josh Sawyer are excited to bring you a new role-playing game for the PC. Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment.

Project Eternity aims to recapture the magic, imagination, depth, and nostalgia of classic RPG's that we enjoyed making - and playing. At Obsidian, we have the people responsible for many of those classic games and we want to bring those games back… and that’s why we’re here - we need your help to make it a reality!

 

Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.

[Toombs]

Voted "For"

 

As long as its done in a decent way, rewarding Experience to the Player via Objective based gameplay makes the second most sense(the only option "making even more sense" would be to award individual skill experience based on what skills the player is using to simulate a learning effect).

 

There are a lot of RPGs out there and most of them have one thing in common they fail to truthfully recognize player achievements or simulate the accumulation of learning experience.

 

For example the aforementioned degenerating gameplay, where you slaughter everyone/rest-spam for random encounters to slaughter them so you can level up - what bugs me mostly about this is the ability to gain a level by mass murdering goblins and then spend points in your sneaking/cooking/whatever skill which shouldn't be possible.

 

The other thing is that players are often not appropriately compensated(rewarded) for things that are an accomplishment in the game-world.

 

An example for this was something that happened to me in Vampire The Dark Ages (PnP) when i "accidentally stumbled upon Mary the Black in Constantinople and ended up fighting for my life with tooth and nails, I was lucky, used the right mixture of situational awareness, character skills and disciplines and ended up destroying her - not knowing at the time what role she would have played in the near future.

And I got nothing. because according to the gamemaster the paperback rules of the Ruleset didnt have anything regarding experience rewards for history/gamechanging accomplishments like that.

 

I felt kind of duped.

 

When I look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution(which is a cool game, dont get me wrong!) where playing a certain way or doing certain things award you massive amounts of experience (stealthy, non-lethal takedown, hacker dude) whereas playing the game any other way will stunt your ability to fully "cyber up" your character.

 

This is bad game design.

 

But i feel that objective based experience rewards in PE would make more sense, as long as certain accomplishments like "Killed the Elder Lich of Raven Castle and thwarted his attempt to turn the City of Duncraig Haven into the Walking Dead" award the player the appropriate amount of experience.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Toombs

[Lilarcor]

I vote against.

 

I played Bloodlines a few times and i have experienced both mechanics. I would prefer to see a system that goes more down the Baldur's Gate line, but with some improvements or changes added. Baldur's Gate series has a system that rewards both quest/objective completion and killing hostiles. Granted, killing rewards you with much less XP points than completing quests, but still it was there. "Boss" or stronger hostile fights granted more XP, but never more then actually doing what the game is telling you to do.

 

Also, i might add that you couldn't go anywhere and fight anyone you please, and thus gain huge amounts of XP points, because the game was so well balanced that most of the fights were a real challenge even later on in the game, when you start encountering Bathezu and Demi-lich for an example.

 

In the end, i think this poll is just about personal preference really. Mine is to stay true to the best rpg's they once made.

[Kurumi Morishita]

Strictly Against!!!

 

I believe that the "direct" XP reward for every action you do (be it killing a monster, solving a riddle, disarming a trap, etc.) is simply more realistic and satisfying.. not to mention that it's the "classic" way to do it this way and in most of my favorite rpgs it's exactly handled like that.

[Malcador]

http://www.kickstart...sidian/comments

 

Feargus says:

 

@Adric The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems.

 

Hm, shame they've not locked that up before the funding, but oh well, I hope the XP is given per objective - and they can always have sub-objectives that reward different approaches (well ok same thing as objectives, I guess).

[twincast]

I chose against.

 

If they're trying to capture the spirit of the Baldur's Gate/NWN games, part of that mechanic was killing mobs/disarming traps yielded XP. Admittedly you don't tend to gain much (unless it was a boss fight), but you do gain something.

 

XP on objectives only is something I'm very iffy about. In some games, it works. V:tM - Bloodlines is one. Fallout: New Vegas is another. However, in some games it really doesn't. Mass Effect has you killing loads of enemies, with no reward at all... not even loot. Half the time I wish they wern't there so I can get on with the story since they're mostly just annoying. So yeah... right now I would say against, but maybe Obsidian can surprise me and pull out a decent, objective-reward based system that doesn't irritate the crap out of me by providing no reward at all from killing mobs.

You do realize who made those games, right? That said, since when is NV objective-based only? Edited October 16, 2012 by twincast

[evdk]

realistic

There is nor has there ever been a realistic experience system. Claiming that any of the myriads of abstractions of the complex process of learning is somehow more realistic than the other is intellectually dishonest at best, trolling at worst.

 

tl;dr - HAHAHAHAHA OH WOW

[Amentep]

[/b]ta' timestamp='1350402721' post='1244400']

Strictly Against!!!

 

I believe that the "direct" XP reward for every action you do (be it killing a monster, solving a riddle, disarming a trap, etc.) is simply more realistic and satisfying.. not to mention that it's the "classic" way to do it this way and in most of my favorite rpgs it's exactly handled like that.

 

I think the "problem" they're trying to address with this change is that XP as you suggested favors killing monsters giving little reward for the player who would rather sneak around the monsters because they're super-stealth-dude(tte)s; essentially they're trying to expand past the "combat is the only viable route" or "combat is the optimal route" method of many games (including BG and IWD).

 

*thinks about it*

 

Perhaps the problem is they're trying to think through the problem for all player scenarios?

 

If you're creating a well balanced party then should the game be balanced toward a balanced party? Your fighter kills the monster, your wizard solves the riddle and the rogue disarms the trap. The group gets all the XP.

 

But a single player soloing might be able to kill the monster but not solve the riddle or disarm the trap (fighter) or solve the riddle, disarm the trap but not kill the monster (rogue). A specialist party might be able to do two of the three (like the wizard party solving the riddle and killing the monster, but not being able to disarm the trap).

 

However if the XP is assigned to the goal and not the individual actions the player is rewarded regardless of play style or party make up? Of course the counter argument could be that in party based games the assumption is a balanced party and the player who chooses otherwise is opting for greater difficulty (because they have less utility and more possibility to not earn xp).

 

EDIT: Really? Censoring part of a username? lewl.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Amentep

[Arkeus]

 

 

However if the XP is assigned to the goal and not the individual actions the player is rewarded regardless of play style or party make up? Of course the counter argument could be that in party based games the assumption is a balanced party and the player who chooses otherwise is opting for greater difficulty (because they have less utility and more possibility to not earn xp).

 

EDIT: Really? Censoring part of a username? lewl.

 

It is more about playstyles than party make up. If a game gives you more than one way to finish a objective (as a proper rpg should, which is sadly rare nowadays), then it makes sense that there is no "one way" that is above all the others, at least in most cases- as havign a strictly better way make all the players who are trying to roleplay a different kind of character who would never agree to that way 'penalized' for this.

 

Sadly, in a lot of games the 'true way' was diplomacy+ stealing + betrayal of what you just said for exp. The 'per objective' means that you wouldn't get more exp for that betrayal, and thus if you chose to betray them it would only be about roleplay, not about exp and meta-gaming. Of course, it would also mean the other ways won't be penalized for roleplaying their character.

[Providence]

Because you don't know if it is hack and slash or not.

 

Especially with regenerating spammable (low level?) spells and regenerating stamina and no rest - "spamming" to boot, it has all the features of a hack and slash like DA2.

 

Jesus Christ Shrek, give your crusade a rest for a day, you are becoming worse then VotS, because in his case I am at least reasonably sure that he is trolling.

 

I can't put my finger on it, but I smell a strong impairment in you.

This is not the codex, little angry doll, stop the personal attacks.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Providence

[Lysen]

http://www.kickstart...sidian/comments

 

Feargus says:

 

@Adric The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems.

 

Damn.

[Providence]

I voted for. It'll give me more of a reason to explore the world better.

 

I agree bro, there's no better incentive to explore areas full of monsters that want to kill you than awarding no xp for killing them.

 

On the contrary, since monsters are monsters are monsters, what is your incentive to explore any particular area if you can get the same amount of XP from grinding monsters in an area you've already explored?

 

Objective-based XP incentivizes you to go to new places and do new things.

 

Yeah, agreeD because all monsters will be clones of each other and all areas will have the same clones so there won't be any incentive to go to different areas to experience different combat encounters.

 

I thought you people from teh codex had better and at least a bit more sensible arguments... on occasion.

[Ieo]

http://www.kickstart...sidian/comments

 

Feargus says:

 

@Adric The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems.

 

Damn.

 

Which would work perfectly with one of my earlier ideas.

 

See---people need to stop thinking about the implementation in only a vacuum. There are plenty of ways to counterbalance so gameplay style is still fair but world kills are still rewarded in some way.

[Infinitron]

Yeah, agreeD because all monsters will be clones of each other and all areas will have the same clones so there won't be any incentive to go to different areas to experience different combat encounters.

 

I thought you people from teh codex had better and at least a bit more sensible arguments... on occasion.

 

Yes, of course my argument is an oversimplification but then again, so was yours. I agree that both mechanics can incentivize players, but which is more effective?

[KhaineGB]

I chose against.

 

If they're trying to capture the spirit of the Baldur's Gate/NWN games, part of that mechanic was killing mobs/disarming traps yielded XP. Admittedly you don't tend to gain much (unless it was a boss fight), but you do gain something.

 

XP on objectives only is something I'm very iffy about. In some games, it works. V:tM - Bloodlines is one. Fallout: New Vegas is another. However, in some games it really doesn't. Mass Effect has you killing loads of enemies, with no reward at all... not even loot. Half the time I wish they wern't there so I can get on with the story since they're mostly just annoying. So yeah... right now I would say against, but maybe Obsidian can surprise me and pull out a decent, objective-reward based system that doesn't irritate the crap out of me by providing no reward at all from killing mobs.

You do realize who made those games, right? That said, since when is NV objective-based only?

 

Black Isle/Bioware... so basically, not Bioware as it exists today. In fact, BG/BG2 are referenced in the PE kickstarter page.

 

Why? Did you have a point to make? Other than the fact those games are based off the AD&D 2nd Edition ruleset?

[tox1c5lug]

It is disconcerting just how divisive this topic is.

[evdk]

I can't put my finger on it, but I smell a strong impairment in you.

This is not the codex, little angry doll, stop the personal attacks.

Thank you for your armchair moderating, I will be sure to keep your opinions in mind.

[El Duderino]

I just made a topic called XP System - Pro Efficiency idea, that it's about not getting XP from killing monster (if that's not your objective) and still get something out of it (you don't get xp points to raise your skills, but you get Bonuses of Pro Efficiency in something).

[Sathor]

Voted against, I want a way to cheese myself to max level and just unleash terror upon all living/undead beings.

[calabi]

I voted for. The rewards you get for killing things should be there stuff, the loot and gold. Or maybe you get knowledge that makes you better at killing those specific creatures.

 

I prefer all avenues to be viable. This doesnt sound like a grindy diablo type game, but a story led one with interesting choices.

[Oerwinde]

What it comes down to for me is:

 

Kill based XP = You need to kill everything

Objective based XP = You can play how you want

 

I prefer to avoid combat in RPGs because its mostly boring and I'd rather get on with the story or quests, so Objective based fits my playstyle better.

 

In other words, For.

 

You've made the false assumption that you have to kill everything if you receive xp/kill, this is not true, xp/kill doesn't mean there isn't other ways to get xp in a well designed system. I'm really not sure why people keep jumping to this conclusion.

 

No, my assumption is that if you do go around to kill everything you have an advantage over those who don't.

[Volourn]

"Objective-based XP incentivizes you to go to new places and do new things."

 

No, it doesn't. Besdies, I thought the key argument against battle xp was that you shouldn't need xp to motivate you to do things.. so, why is xp needed to motivate you to explore?

[Hassat Hunter]

No one reads my post

http://www.kickstart...sidian/comments

 

Feargus says:

 

@Adric The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems.

That just sucks. I hope they don't back out just because some people don't like it. Don't turn this in a Dragon Age 2 please where "fan feedback" made the game suck beyond reason...

I believe that the "direct" XP reward for every action you do (be it killing a monster, solving a riddle, disarming a trap, etc.) is simply more realistic and satisfying.. not to mention that it's the "classic" way to do it this way and in most of my favorite rpgs it's exactly handled like that.

So not triggering a trap and dying, the loot in a locket etc. aren't all a reward? You need to be rewarded for every little thing you do? You need a little pat on your back for pretty much every action you take?

 

It's almost as bad as gaining achievements for jumping, getting hit, first crafting, first kill etc. that plague games these days.

[Lilarcor]

No one reads my post

http://www.kickstart...sidian/comments

 

Feargus says:

 

@Adric The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems.

That just sucks. I hope they don't back out just because some people don't like it. Don't turn this in a Dragon Age 2 please where "fan feedback" made the game suck beyond reason...

 

Oh, so you're saying that Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Icewind Dale are bad games? I can tell you right now that those games use the system they are hinting that they will use for Project Eternity. Or maybe you haven't played any of those... The main factor in having such a XP mechanic in place is, like they said in that post, balance.

[Nixl]

Against,

 

I am against this system for two reasons. First, as much as I understand the dev's reasoning, I still think leveling/XP decisions is a player decision. If a player wants to level solely through exploration encounters or hunting bandits or dragons, I think the choice should remain open. Second, from what I understand of "degenerative" gameplay, the issue derives from an imbalance of XP sources and not solely on "XP from kills." The middle ground is perhaps hazy, but I do think it is possible. So long as the optimal leveling path is not grinding level 1 boars, I think XP for kills is okay.

 

 

XP only for completing objectives - and regernerating health?!

 

Well, Project Eternity is now turning into an action RPG. lol Might as well name it "Call of Eternity"!

 

Yup, old school RPGs are truly dead, you heard it from Obsidian - the guys that wanted to revive that genre. ^^

 

I do not mean to be rude, but unless my sarcasm meter is broken, this post seem overly dramatic.

 

How does one derive objective based XP and regenerating stamina as action RPG elements? Last time I checked, action RPGs award XP for kills and objectives. I simply do not understand this argument at all. I can perhaps understand issue with regenerating stamina, but Planescape Torment essentially had regenerating health, which became progressively stronger with constitution. Yet, PST was not an action RPG.

 

Also, calling P:E, "Call of Eternity," just seems like exaggeration for the sake of exxageration.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Nixl