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

[Azarkon]

Against.

 

One of the gaming principles I abide by is that it is not up to the developer to decide what 'degenerate' - and for that matter, what 'proper' - gameplay is. That decision falls to the player. The player decides whether slaughtering townsfolk after saving their town for exp is 'degenerate.' The player decides whether resetting an area over and over again for monsters and loot is 'degenerate.' I don't say this just to be dogmatic, but it needs to be stressed - how the player plays the game is up to him / her. It is not the place of the developer to take away options. Wherever the choice exists, give additional options.

 

The sole caveat to this rule is when taking away an option serves an artistic / thematic goal. For example, at the end of Mask of The Betrayer, you are not given the option to fight Kelemvor over the wall of souls, despite violence being a solution to every quest up to that moment and despite the crescendo of violent struggles leading up to it. The contrast serves to drive home a theme of the Forgotten Realms, which is also MoTB's leit motif - that attempting to subvert the gods is futile and only leads to tragedy. This is why Akachi's crusade failed, and why Dove's quest is tragic.

 

Such caveats are not, however, a license for creating superficial lore artifices to justify every little design decision. An exception, such as the above example, is only useful for conveying meaning when it subverts the normative behavior of a game, and in so doing causes cognitive dissonance from the player - ie 'WHAT? Why don't I get the option to kill Kelemvor?!!?!' It is through reflecting on that dissonance that players come to understand the thematic principle behind it, and in doing so, obtain a greater appreciation of the game.

 

For Project Eternity, I don't see how designing 'not giving exp for kills' into the basic mechanics of the game serves the same thematic end. Yes, we don't know enough about Project Eternity to declare its themes, but given the reference to Infinity Engine games such as Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate every other line, and given the 'Huge Mega Dungeon' stretch goal, it is safe to say that there is going to be a lot of combat in this game, and that this is going to be a focus of its gameplay. In which case, 'not giving exp for kills' is not a subversion of the game insomuch as it contradicts the very foundations upon which classic RPGs - including the IE games - were built: character building through combat.

 

You heard me. It's not the plot. It's not the character interactions. It's not the romances. It's not the choices-and-consequences. It's not the exploration. Classic RPGs, including the Infinity Engine games, were designed, from the ground up, to be combat simulators. This manifests in the way you design your character, the classes, the stats that he / she has, the equipment system, the magic system, the NPC / object interaction system, the isometric 'tactical' view, the amount of time you spend in the game killing stuff, the rewards you get for killing stuff, and so on so forth. This is why D&D manuals spend hundreds of pages on combat rules, stats, and mechanics, and only a few dozen on lore.

 

The breakthrough of classic RPGs over Action / RTS games, which also revolve around combat, is the addition of character progression - the granting of an advancement carrot that incentivizes combat beyond the love of combat. This feature of RPGs allows them to provide a form of psychological reward beyond the sheer enjoyment of the combat itself, and in doing so increases the player's tolerance for repetition. Where Action / RTS games have to exert the entirety of their design on coming up with innovative combat encounters and situations to keep the player's attention span, RPGs get it a lot easier - RPGs are allowed to have repetitive combat because they reward players for grinding through them via exp progression.

 

Exp gain through combat is thus one of the basic principles underlying the design of RPGs - a tried-and-tested system for improving player experience in them. Psychologically, players want to be rewarded for the activities in which they engage, and because combat occupies the bulk of activities in classic RPGs and easily becomes repetitive, they have to be rewarded. Fail to do so, and what you have is a game chock full of repetitive activies that the player has no incentive to engage in, which leads to tedium, frustration, and is a sure way to make a game a chore, rather than entertainment.

 

Theoretically, there is place for a RPG in which combat is not rewarded, in which the basic activity the player engages in, and which occupies the bulk of his time, is not combat but roleplaying - a catch all word for other activities found in RPGs. Of all the classic RPGs clinging to a modicrum of success, Planescape: Torment came nearest to achieving this goal - largely by substituting combat with dialogue. Yet, PST was only able to achieve this by sacrificing combat itself - which was by far the worst feature in the game, and one criticized to no ends.

 

From what I've been reading, Project Eternity is not the game for this sort of experimentation. It is a game that tries to harken back to the Infinity Engine games, the Icewind Dales and the Baldur Gates. It is a game that tries to recapture the classic RPG experience of adventuring, treasure finding, and character building. In that case, combat is not just a feature but the foundations upon which player experience is built. In that case, it has to be rewarded.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Azarkon

[MaximKat]

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?

No, the argument was that XP shouldn't motivate you do ridiculous things. Exploration is not one of them.

[Providence]

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?

 

That's not an issue. One shouldn't exclude the other because kill xp and "objective" xp can coexist.

 

Talking specifically about Obsidian/Troika/etc. games, the problem never was kill xp, but endless random encounters (Fallout, Arcanum) and endless respawns (Fallout NV). Those encounters are grindable (EVEN if you're not doing it on purpose but just traveling/exploring) and can inflate xp. So instead of eliminating these unnecessary features, they want to remove kill xp. It's... completely illogical.

[Maf]

Theoretically, there is place for a RPG in which combat is not rewarded, in which the basic activity the player engages in, and which occupies the bulk of his time, is not combat but 'roleplaying.' Of all the classic RPGs clinging to a modicrum of success, Planescape: Torment came nearest to achieving this goal - largely by substituting combat with dialogue. Yet, PST was only able to achieve this by sacrificing combat itself - which was by far the worst feature in the game, and one criticized to no ends.

 

From what I've been reading, Project Eternity is not the game for this sort of experimentation. It is a game that tries to harken back to the Infinity Engine games, the Icewind Dales and the Baldur Gates. It is a game that tries to recapture the classic RPG experience of adventuring, treasure finding, and character building. In that case, combat is not just a feature but the foundations upon which player experience is built. In that case, it has to be rewarded.

How at odds our opinions are.

For me combat is a nice side dish, not the main course.

IWD and IWD2, out of all the infinity engine games were (for me) the weakest.

I could never really get "into" them, even though I've REALLY tried hard.

It comes down to story for me and the narrative through which it is displayed.

That doesn't mean I don't like slaying my fair share of xvarts however.

But the way BG and PST grip you by the heart and drag it into the world is something the dungeon crawlers ala IWD have simply never gotten even close to.

-edit need to shrink that enormous post down a bit.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Maf

[Mrakvampire]

Against. Give XP as it was given in BG2 plus add XP for using skills.

And if you are worried by XP grind for random encounters - reduce XP gain for random encounters!

Edited October 16, 2012 by Mrakvampire

[deamon451]

The problem is that we don't know how OE is going to implement a quest only XP system. If we have a random encounter is it considered a quest? If so is killing everything and talking your way out of it valid options with both awarding the same amount of XP?

 

OE need to take some time and explain in as much detail as they have in some sort of design document on what their vision is for the XP system and give us some examples of how it will work. We are currently lacking a lot of information.

[Infinitron]

That's not an issue. One shouldn't exclude the other because kill xp and "objective" xp can coexist.

 

Talking specifically about Obsidian/Troika/etc. games, the problem never was kill xp, but endless random encounters (Fallout, Arcanum) and endless respawns (Fallout NV). Those encounters are grindable (EVEN if you're not doing it on purpose but just traveling/exploring) and can inflate xp. So instead of eliminating these unnecessary features, they want to remove kill xp. It's... completely illogical.

 

I hope you realize that what's going to happen here is that you'll get your kill xp, but it will be ridiculously, meaninglessly low - just to provide Obsidian with a fig leaf to cover over the design philosophy they REALLY want to accomplish.

 

Luckily, the OCD crowd doesn't care how little xp they get. They just want to see those numbers pop up.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Infinitron

[Droogle]

I don't understand how so many people could be against exp for kills.

 

This game is supposed to be similar to the IE games. That means exp for killing things.

 

All this talk about exp for killing things making exp rewards unbalanced doesn't really make sense. You are playing as a class, a combat class. There is no merchant diplomat class. All of the classes have been described by the way through which they engage in combat. This isn't a skill-point based game like fallout. This isn't a game that (judging by the classes) will allow you to play as a pacifist. You aren't going to be able to talk/sneak your way past every obstacle. There are going to be fights you can't avoid, and not rewarding you for winning those fights would make them tedious and annoying.

[Amentep]

Against.

 

One of the gaming principles I abide by is that it is not up to the developer to decide what 'degenerate' - and for that matter, what 'proper' - gameplay is. That decision falls to the player. The player decides whether slaughtering townsfolk after saving their town for exp is 'degenerate.' The player decides whether resetting an area over and over again for monsters and loot is 'degenerate.' I don't say this just to be dogmatic, but it needs to be stressed - how the player plays the game is up to him / her. It is not the place of the developer to take away options. Wherever the choice exists, give additional options.

 

I'm not sure how not giving XP for killing the townspeople is saying its proper / degenerate gameplay. Or putting a value judgement on it at all.

 

The sole caveat to this rule is when taking away an option serves an artistic / thematic goal. For example, at the end of Mask of The Betrayer, you are not given the option to fight Kelemvor over the wall of souls, despite violence being a solution to every quest up to that moment and despite the crescendo of violent struggles leading up to it. The contrast serves to drive home a theme of the Forgotten Realms, which is also MoTB's leit motif - that attempting to subvert the gods is futile and only leads to tragedy. This is why Akachi's crusade failed, and why Dove's quest is tragic.

 

Cyric - who killed Myrkul - was a mortal, as was Kelemvor who took over Myrkul's worship. Not sure how a storyline involving Kelemvor could ever imply its futile to subvert the gods since pretty much Kelemvor existing as a god is a sign you can do just that (even if it isn't easy).

[deamon451]

 

Luckily, the OCD crowd doesn't care how little xp they get. They just want to see those numbers pop up.

 

I figured that the OCD croud would still be playing Diablo 3 or WoW when P:E gets released.

[Infinitron]

I don't understand how so many people could be against exp for kills.

 

This game is supposed to be similar to the IE games. That means exp for killing things.

 

All this talk about exp for killing things making exp rewards unbalanced doesn't really make sense. You are playing as a class, a combat class. There is no merchant diplomat class. All of the classes have been described by the way through which they engage in combat. This isn't a skill-point based game like fallout. This isn't a game that (judging by the classes) will allow you to play as a pacifist. You aren't going to be able to talk/sneak your way past every obstacle. There are going to be fights you can't avoid, and not rewarding you for winning those fights would make them tedious and annoying.

 

Read Josh Sawyer's posts again.

 

I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Infinitron

[Maf]

I don't understand how so many people could be against exp for kills.

 

This game is supposed to be similar to the IE games. That means exp for killing things.

 

All this talk about exp for killing things making exp rewards unbalanced doesn't really make sense. You are playing as a class, a combat class. There is no merchant diplomat class. All of the classes have been described by the way through which they engage in combat. This isn't a skill-point based game like fallout. This isn't a game that (judging by the classes) will allow you to play as a pacifist. You aren't going to be able to talk/sneak your way past every obstacle. There are going to be fights you can't avoid, and not rewarding you for winning those fights would make them tedious and annoying.

The thing I've seen repeated the most does indeed appear to be that people wanting kill exp, don't really care about anything else.

They dont feel handcrafted loot and even story as something even resembling a reward, instead they want to see cold hard numbers.

I can't even begin to relate.

It's like trying to speak to a fish.

[deamon451]

This game is supposed to be similar to the IE games. That means exp for killing things.

 

I was under the impression that an IE game had a epic plot, great characters, cool art, and tacical battles that call for more than pressing the same button over and over again rather than the internal mechanics of xp gathering.

 

Remember that Bioware created the IE engine and that Black Isle ran with it for IWD 1/2 and PS:T so the underlying kills for xp engine was legacy.

[Nixl]

That's not an issue. One shouldn't exclude the other because kill xp and "objective" xp can coexist.

 

Talking specifically about Obsidian/Troika/etc. games, the problem never was kill xp, but endless random encounters (Fallout, Arcanum) and endless respawns (Fallout NV). Those encounters are grindable (EVEN if you're not doing it on purpose but just traveling/exploring) and can inflate xp. So instead of eliminating these unnecessary features, they want to remove kill xp. It's... completely illogical.

 

I hope you realize that what's going to happen here is that you'll get your kill xp, but it will be ridiculously, meaninglessly low - just to provide Obsidian with a fig leaf to cover over the design philosophy they REALLY want to accomplish.

 

Luckily, the OCD crowd doesn't care how little xp they get. They just want to see those numbers pop up.

 

I believe this will happen as well. I do, however, believe that kills for XP should remain a legitamate leveling path. Therefore, I do not believe the XP gains from kills should be too small. I know the soul of this game is in the story, but I think one could also make the argument that player choice is also an essential ingredient.

 

If someone wants to just explore or roleplay a character that kills bandits, why not reward that style? Such a style should not be the optimal path, but it should still count as a path.

[Maf]

If someone wants to just explore or roleplay a character that kills bandits, why not reward that style? Such a style should not be the optimal path, but it should still count as a path.

How ironic that you use playstyles as an argument against, when objective based xp allows for the most flexibility in that regard.

 

Leave "dealing with the bandits" as objective.

Deal with them how you please (kill/intimidate/enslave/charm/etc).

Receive xp.

[deamon451]

If someone wants to just explore or roleplay a character that kills bandits, why not reward that style? Such a style should not be the optimal path, but it should still count as a path.

How ironic that you use playstyles as an argument against, when objective based xp allows for the most flexibility in that regard.

 

Leave "dealing with the bandits" as objective.

Deal with them how you please (kill/intimidate/enslave/charm/etc).

Receive xp.

 

Now the question is how to implement this. Someone find a Developer!!!

[Providence]

That's not an issue. One shouldn't exclude the other because kill xp and "objective" xp can coexist.

 

Talking specifically about Obsidian/Troika/etc. games, the problem never was kill xp, but endless random encounters (Fallout, Arcanum) and endless respawns (Fallout NV). Those encounters are grindable (EVEN if you're not doing it on purpose but just traveling/exploring) and can inflate xp. So instead of eliminating these unnecessary features, they want to remove kill xp. It's... completely illogical.

 

I hope you realize that what's going to happen here is that you'll get your kill xp, but it will be ridiculously, meaninglessly low - just to provide Obsidian with a fig leaf to cover over the design philosophy they REALLY want to accomplish.

 

Luckily, the OCD crowd doesn't care how little xp they get. They just want to see those numbers pop up.

 

That would be an insult to intelligence and I hope Obsidian is above that. Kill XP should be meaningful, as should their supposedly tactical combat.

 

OCD crowd? Really?

Don't let me start with names for the ""objective""-only crowd, because I can be much more... creative.

[Nihatek]

Against.

 

Hi, i am actually against levling just for making quests - taking experience for taking book from point A to point B is similary absurd as gaining experience for killing a rabbit.

 

Secondly - if i kill a dragon - it might be in quest, it might be my objective - but i can meet the dragon without noticing that he is dangerous for local tribe and by defeating him i will gain experience.

 

I still believe that experience should be little rare and not everywhere to grind - does not matter if quests or innocent animals. I think experience should be rewarded for challanging encounter - either where you have to think about solving some situation, or killing difficult encounter (at least not easy one) or when character overcome himself in order to succeed (defeats his fear of spiders for instance).

 

As well as i think that game could be solved in piece way without killing anyone or solo without any companions.

[Maf]

Now the question is how to implement this. Someone find a Developer!!!

You would have found yours with Josh and Tim.

Unfortunately there are people that find this is NOT enough.

They don't want xp ONLY for the objective but rather for each and every single thing done until reaching said objective (and probably wouldn't mind dropping said objective xp entirely).

It's not a bad system, but one that's harder to realise and requires more work.

Work I think they should be doing elsewhere.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Maf

[deamon451]

Secondly - if i kill a dragon - it might be in quest, it might be my objective - but i can meet the dragon without noticing that he is dangerous for local tribe and by defeating him i will gain experience.

 

And thereby still completeing, while unknown to you, the objective.

 

Does it matter what we call it if the experience is the same regardless?

Edited October 16, 2012 by deamon451

[deamon451]

Lets face it. Until OE start to actually build the game and start testing it, none of us is going to know how the system really works. I for one will be trolling the Beta test forums.

[Azarkon]

Against.

 

One of the gaming principles I abide by is that it is not up to the developer to decide what 'degenerate' - and for that matter, what 'proper' - gameplay is. That decision falls to the player. The player decides whether slaughtering townsfolk after saving their town for exp is 'degenerate.' The player decides whether resetting an area over and over again for monsters and loot is 'degenerate.' I don't say this just to be dogmatic, but it needs to be stressed - how the player plays the game is up to him / her. It is not the place of the developer to take away options. Wherever the choice exists, give additional options.

 

I'm not sure how not giving XP for killing the townspeople is saying its proper / degenerate gameplay. Or putting a value judgement on it at all.

 

I was responding to Sawyer and Cain's quotes from the first page.

 

Cyric - who killed Myrkul - was a mortal, as was Kelemvor who took over Myrkul's worship. Not sure how a storyline involving Kelemvor could ever imply its futile to subvert the gods since pretty much Kelemvor existing as a god is a sign you can do just that (even if it isn't easy).

 

Yes, well, unfortunately, the Forgotten Realms is not a very well articulated world in terms of its thematic drives, so at times you get contradicting signals from the designers who created it. Generally, the idea is that subvering the gods is bad / futile. But because of the need to sell new material, FR designers have a habit of having these 'times of trouble' in which all the laws go kablunk. This is not solid world design. It is, however, necessitated by D&D commercialism.

 

Mask of the Betrayer, however, is fairly well articulated in terms of its themes, and in the context of the D&D world presented in MOTB, what I said stands.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Azarkon

[ReyVagabond]

In my perspective i dont like how the usual XP system works, or the level up proses for that matter.

i would prefer inted of the usual system where you pic bonuses after a level achived, one where you chose what you want to gain and the xp you gain in send that way.

 

And with this kind of sistem is easier to balance the game. because the Game XP is set for the amount of content it has.

Edited October 16, 2012 by ReyVagabond

[Nixl]

If someone wants to just explore or roleplay a character that kills bandits, why not reward that style? Such a style should not be the optimal path, but it should still count as a path.

How ironic that you use playstyles as an argument against, when objective based xp allows for the most flexibility in that regard.

 

Leave "dealing with the bandits" as objective.

Deal with them how you please (kill/intimidate/enslave/charm/etc).

Receive xp.

 

Perhaps there is some confusion, I am not using playstyles in the context of mage/rogue/kill/intimidate/charm, etc. Instead, I am refering to taking quests vs. "exploration" or not taking quests. When I say, "killing bandits," I do not mean a quest or an objective, but rather just exploration and finding battles along the way. Take Fallout or Arcanum, one could find random encounters or even dungeons that were irrelevant to the main plot or dettached from a quest. Those encounters were rewarded even if it did not have an objective or quest attached. That is what I am getting at. If a player enjoyed finding Enclave soldiers encounters on max difficulty rather than quests/objectives, why not give them some xp?

 

 

For a quest or story centric RPG that may be absurd, but I still think it should be up to the playe to decide. Part of it is I just do not see a strong point for absolutely no XP from kills. I am fine with having the majority of XP deriving from objectives, but why not also have a little xp for kills? It seems like a removal that changes little except removing one possibility of choice for leveling. It may be a small and lagely ignored choice, but it is still a choice.

 

edit: Clarity, grammar, spelling, etc

Edited October 16, 2012 by Nixl

[deamon451]

Yes, well, unfortunately, the Forgotten Realms is not a very well articulated world in terms of its thematic drives, so at times you get contradicting signals from the designers who created it. Generally, the idea is that subvering the gods is bad / futile. But because of the need to publish new material, FR designers have a habit of having these 'times of trouble' in which all the laws go kablunk.

 

Sales are falling!!! Quick release the new rules revision!!!