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

[Elfwyn]

I personally do not care if experience points are only given for completed quests. It is true that harvesting XP feels nostalgic of old school RPGs, but I am open for new concepts that may be suited better for roleplay immersion.

 

Play-Tests will show if the new way of handling things will satisfy the fans and if there are unforeseen drawbacks to this approach it may well be reworked to be more traditional. Time will tell.

[Kide]

As I wrote before I do not care that much which system is implemented... Though I do have to say I might still prefer the old system, of gaining experience from small things, from everything you do. Feels more nostalgic plus rewarding when you can see the progress you make all the way and not only when you achieve some goal.

 

It just feels more rewarding to me, even if you could argue that the other system would be just as good, and might be easier to implement well, but... Still if we are talking about capturing the feel of the old games, then I would go with the old system, as you can't change the fact that for some it will simply feel more rewarding than a new system...

 

Though I am open of trying a new system as well, even if I would like many things to be very close to the old games, there should of course be some improvements made. There has been a lot of time between the old infinite engine games and now project eternity. But I will be happy with anything obsidian wants to make, I trust them to make the right decision's, just saying my opinion of things.

 

EDIT:

And just to add, I usually in a game go though each area once, and for example in planeacape torment, there really would be no point for undersigil if you did not gain experience from there, and if there was no possibility to grind experience in there. Sometimes grinding in small amount is enjoyable (I would never play WoT, if it would not be enjoyable... For whatever reason), even if it is not the main focus of the game. And I never killed Drizzt for example in baldur's gate series, because I felt it would have been mean even when you would have gained experience from it. I don't think I should gain the same experience by not killing him though, as talking to him and gaining his help really would not be as much of a challenge as killing him. So there the player can choose how they want to play that situation, do they want to roleplay and play as such, or to just gain the maxium experience points. In a way the old system is more rewarding for a lot of people, and in my opinion it is nice to have those kind of choices...

 

But obsidian should do as they want to do, just saying what I think. ^^

Edited October 17, 2012 by Kide

[Karkarov]

nobody prevents you from role playing the munchkin. you just dont get double xp for it

 

So basically you prevent people being munchkins. Getting double XP, extra loot, using bugs and glitches to win combat - it's all part of the fun for these people.

you can still exploit glitches, you get all the loot you can carry but you dont get extra xp. besides if you wanna be a munchkin you dont play an old school rpg... there are many modern rpg that cater to your needs

Actually as much as I hate to say it Old School RPG's are actually what created the "munchkin" ideal in the first place. So no, you should definitely go to Old School RPG's to get your munchkin on.

 

That out of the way, this is a game design decision. Many posters here don't seem to .... get it. If your game is "objective" based EXP rewards then odds are... there are no mobs to grind. A well made game (particularly an "old school" RPG) should only have enough exp available in it to prepare you for what you are going to face in the next encounter and or maybe make you a little stronger than you "need" to be to win. In other words if you wander through a forest and find 10 bandits OOOOHHH, they are there for a reason. If you kill them and come back those 10 bandits are gone, done, finito. There may be a random encounter here and there, maybe, but for the most part their rewards should be minimal.

 

The real challenge of an objective based exp system has little or nothing to with actual exp. Experienced dudes like Obsidian should be more than capable of making that work. The issue is how you handle things like say loot. It is simple fact but the guy who kills every enemy he meets, for the most part, is likely going to get more loot. Loot can have just as much to do with your parties power as level does, sometimes it is even more important.

[almondblight]

So basically you prevent people being munchkins. Getting double XP, extra loot, using bugs and glitches to win combat - it's all part of the fun for these people.

 

So what - they should have bosses and enemies repopulate Diablo II style so that people who want to keep whacking on them for XP can play this game like a hack and slash? Some focus on this game is a good thing. You'll still get your chance to kill things and level - they've said that that there won't just be quest objectives, but in places like the 14 level dungeon the objective might be reaching certain areas. But they're not going to give you extra XP if you reach those objectives through combat rather than through stealth or other ways.

 

Combat won't be rewarded any less than the other methods - it only won't be rewarded more than the other methods. That's the kind of game they're trying to make. To allow this game to be played as a turn-based hack and slash cyberpunk steam punk fantasy FPS to appease every player is only going to make this game a mess. Focus is good.

[teknoman2]

nobody prevents you from role playing the munchkin. you just dont get double xp for it

 

So basically you prevent people being munchkins. Getting double XP, extra loot, using bugs and glitches to win combat - it's all part of the fun for these people.

you can still exploit glitches, you get all the loot you can carry but you dont get extra xp. besides if you wanna be a munchkin you dont play an old school rpg... there are many modern rpg that cater to your needs

Actually as much as I hate to say it Old School RPG's are actually what created the "munchkin" ideal in the first place. So no, you should definitely go to Old School RPG's to get your munchkin on.

 

That out of the way, this is a game design decision. Many posters here don't seem to .... get it. If your game is "objective" based EXP rewards then odds are... there are no mobs to grind. A well made game (particularly an "old school" RPG) should only have enough exp available in it to prepare you for what you are going to face in the next encounter and or maybe make you a little stronger than you "need" to be to win. In other words if you wander through a forest and find 10 bandits OOOOHHH, they are there for a reason. If you kill them and come back those 10 bandits are gone, done, finito. There may be a random encounter here and there, maybe, but for the most part their rewards should be minimal.

 

The real challenge of an objective based exp system has little or nothing to with actual exp. Experienced dudes like Obsidian should be more than capable of making that work. The issue is how you handle things like say loot. It is simple fact but the guy who kills every enemy he meets, for the most part, is likely going to get more loot. Loot can have just as much to do with your parties power as level does, sometimes it is even more important.

as you said, proper design is the key. the guy who can do things without killing and looting, should be able to get all the way to the end of the game that way, so he wont need more than some basic buyable stuff to get past the parts were you cant talk your way out (like encounters with wild animals). the looter gets better gear cause when the time for important meetings come, his play style will allow him only the solution of fighting his way through boos like enemies

[AlterAsc]

Voted for but i'm not exactly sure. I'm not sure because of difficulty. I mean choosing nice options in dialogue is one thing and struggling while trying to use right tactics is another. And for me this means less sense of accomplishment if diplomacy is used - like i used some cheesy way to get free exp. Also if this system is going to be used i want some goals be achieved only by specific ways.

[Doxy]

Voted for and i think it's a great idea!

In other RPGs if say, you solved the quest by convincing the npc through you speech skill, youd get less xp then a guy who went on a quest and killed all mobs. So you were kinda forced to go out and finish the quest by fighting to gain max xp.

Otherwise you felt like your gimping yourself

[Smgcat]

Voted for. I like the idea of rewarding the player for solving a problem in the way they prefer, instead of forcing them to kill every mob in the game. Also, there's much less need to put in boring 'filler' combat this way. Combat still has it's own reward in being fun and challenging (hopefully) and getting nice loot, so it's not like everyone is suddenly going to choose to avoid combat because of not getting xp for it.

[Eryn Shades]

I don´t mind if i don´t get the exp. In most IE games iirc many encounters didn´t scale so if you got through some side- or mainquests with good quest-exp these encounters didn´t provide so much exp to be in a real advantage. For me it always made a difference if i miss out very good loot at that monent so this was then the main reason to kill encounters instead of talking my way out.

 

So i think it would help a lot to present the player with alternativ loot if he/she successfully talks, sneaks, etc. him/herself out of an encounter. This could probably be interesting for the replayvalue too.

I hope you get my point

[MaximKat]

So you just spent 2 hours going from one side of the map to the other, during that 2 hours you get absolutely ZERO rewards because you have yet to reach the objective yet.. yer.. that's going to work.

Who thinks that a quest where you spend 2 hours fighting mobs without achieving anything of note in the process is a good quest?

[da_mayor]

Personally, I'm generally against "leveling". I know it's a big deal from those games, but I've always prefered purely skill-based advancement. Use/practice a skill enough, it goes up.

 

I know that's not an option here, and it's sure as HELL not gonna keep me from lovin' this game.

 

I voted "don't care". Either one will be fun.

[Goran]

I am for gaining exp only for completing objectives, because it makes non-combat skills much more valuable than otherwise.

[capnlejosh]

I'm absolutely for achieving more points (skill or "XP") by only completing objectives, if unique encounters exist which have no objective, it could be protecting an orb/book/scroll/ring etc. to boost your character somehow rather than just a set of points.

 

I prefer this because at least you're gaining an item with (at least) a unique design, a bit of backstory (lore) and also the ability to talk about what you gained.

 

I'd rather hear people talk about a sword they obtained by overcoming an awesome encounter rather than saying I got 50k XPs and that's all.

 

Yes, you can have both but it dilutes the experience in my opinion and (for example) a book giving you a new spell is much better than gaining XP and then clicking on a context menu to gain a new spell, especially if that book has good writing within it.

 

I haven't read the thread entirely, apologies if I've re-iterated the same points.

[Azarkon]

Why should we be policing how Player's play the game? What right does anyone have to declare that "You're doing it wrong and we're going to stop you!"? How does it affect anyone but that Player if he/she decides to go and do that?

I'm not particularly invested in the debate at all since I don't mind either per kill or objective based, or a mix of both, but I really don't see how this particular objection works.

 

Nothing inherent to objective based rewards stops you playing any way you want- there's nothing specific to it which says that you cannot receive a quest reward then go back and kill everyone involved, should you want to. You just wouldn't be habitually rewarded for that approach. That is not restricting how you play nor penalising for playing a certain way, it's just making sure you do something because you like it or want to rather than because you feel compelled to in order to maximise benefits/xp.

 

While at the same time removing this 'habitual reward' from everywhere else, thereby weakening the tactical combat side of the game.

 

We are going in circles because the advocates of objective only exp gain are dead set on talking about the 'degenerate' cases while the opposition is worried primarily about the overall gameplay. I am not concerned about the 'degenerate' cases because I find them trivial. Provided the game is balanced for parties that did not go back and kill every quest giver / townsfolk they met in their travels, it is not an issue for me because it's not how I play RPGs. Those who feel compelled to squeeze every little drop of exp and loot from the NPCs in the game, roleplaying be damned - I say go ahead, it's your game. I have friends whose idea of having fun in RPGs is to screw with the NPC AI to create retarded situations that they then laugh their heads off about. Devs are not going to stop people from playing the game the way they want to, nor do they have a great argument for why they need to.

 

But when it comes to the overall game mechanic of exp gain for monster killing, that affects me - a lot - because I have always felt that this is a very important feature in classic RPGs, which keeps the games from becoming dull when faced with a long tract of combat, and which encourages the player to fully explore a wilderness / dungeon, effectively making the game longer than the set of objectives it contains. Take, for example, Dragon Age Origin's Deep Roads segment. That slug fest of an area is barely tolerable with exp gain, because you are at the minimum progressing your characters for each darkspawn you kill. Without exp gain, it is unbearable, because it becomes just a tedious chore that you have to do to get to the next objective of the game, which is several hours off.

 

To understand why that is, you have to understand human psychology - we are creatures who want to be rewarded for the activities that we engage in. At times, the novelty of the activity is reward enough. But the bulk of our lives are not spent in novel situations. The bulk of our lives are spent on repetition, which we are able to tolerate only because there are meta-activity rewards - ie money, career advancement, friendship, etc. This psychological phenomenon is why, genre wise, RPGs are able to get away with worse gameplay than action games - because while grinding random mobs in, say, World of Warcraft is in every way a dull and trivial task, the RPG design of the game keeps you grinding because it gives you the satisfaction of knowing that you are advancing your der Wille zur Macht, which is the driving force behind the fantasy of RPG progression.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting that Project Eternity is a monster grinder, but in a game where tactical combat is a primary mode of gameplay, it is vital to understand that 'exp gain for monster killing' is one of the things that makes RPG combat work. Games that do not feature this - which do not reward combat, such as VTMB - do not end up with psychologically rewarding combat systems. Playing through VTMB, this was obvious to me, and one of the biggest complaints about VTMB was the lengthy forced combat segments towards the end.

 

TLDR: when there is no perceptible reward, humans have very little tolerance for repetition. Combat in RPGs is inevitably repetitive by virtue of the fact that RPG designers do not have the luxury to spend the bulk of their time designing innovative encounters. This goes extra for Obsidian, who have said that their development specialty is elsewhere. In that case, having exp gain for monster killing is a tried-and-tested, cheap, and effective way to improve player satisfaction. I know Sawyer and Cain feel that, theoretically speaking, exp gain for objectives is a better design principle because it makes it easier to avoid degenerate scenarios and to implement options. But what they are missing, in my opinion, is that the argument against exp gain for objectives is not just 'nostalgia' for classic RPGs - ala Feargus. The argument is vastly better than that, provided they are designing a game in which tactical combat is going to play a primary role, and has to do with the very principles behind why and how RPG combat is psychologically satisfying.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Azarkon

[Arkeus]

 

TLDR: when there is no perceptible reward, humans have very little tolerance for repetition. Combat in RPGs is inevitably repetitive by virtue of the fact that RPG designers do not have the luxury to spend the bulk of their time designing innovative encounters. This goes extra for Obsidian, who have said that their development specialty is elsewhere. In that case, having exp gain for monster killing is a tried-and-tested, cheap, and effective way to improve player satisfaction. I know Sawyer and Cain feel that, theoretically speaking, exp gain for objectives is a better design principle because it makes it easier to avoid degenerate scenarios and to implement options. But what they are missing, in my opinion, is that the argument against exp gain for objectives is not just 'nostalgia' for classic RPGs - ala Feargus. The argument is vastly better than that, provided they are designing a game in which tactical combat is going to play a primary role.

First, let me say this is the exact reason i never finished the dwarf roads- my characters were already level 25+ at the time, and "exp" was of no importantce whatsoever, and the whole thing was boring as hell.

 

Now, then, here is the thing: You are continuing to ignore that a long-ass dungeon will be cut in many different parts, each giving exp. There won't ever be a "two hours of fighting without reward" because a°) the simple fact that the devs want objective-exp means they don't want such scenarios of long ass boring fights, and b°) you will get your exp.

 

What you won't get is the exp for each different 'kills', but XP when, for example you have "taken care of the monster blocking the passage" or "taken care of the demon wanting your soul", and so on. You will still get that exp, man.

[Tamerlane]

Now, then, here is the thing: You are continuing to ignore that a long-ass dungeon will be cut in many different parts, each giving exp. There won't ever be a "two hours of fighting without reward" because a°) the simple fact that the devs want objective-exp means they don't want such scenarios of long ass boring fights, and b°) you will get your exp.

Hopefully.

 

Pray God they learned that lesson from (the mostly awesome) Bloodlines and its god damn sewer crawl...

[Azarkon]

TLDR: when there is no perceptible reward, humans have very little tolerance for repetition. Combat in RPGs is inevitably repetitive by virtue of the fact that RPG designers do not have the luxury to spend the bulk of their time designing innovative encounters. This goes extra for Obsidian, who have said that their development specialty is elsewhere. In that case, having exp gain for monster killing is a tried-and-tested, cheap, and effective way to improve player satisfaction. I know Sawyer and Cain feel that, theoretically speaking, exp gain for objectives is a better design principle because it makes it easier to avoid degenerate scenarios and to implement options. But what they are missing, in my opinion, is that the argument against exp gain for objectives is not just 'nostalgia' for classic RPGs - ala Feargus. The argument is vastly better than that, provided they are designing a game in which tactical combat is going to play a primary role.

First, let me say this is the exact reason i never finished the dwarf roads- my characters were already level 25+ at the time, and "exp" was of no importantce whatsoever, and the whole thing was boring as hell.

 

Now, then, here is the thing: You are continuing to ignore that a long-ass dungeon will be cut in many different parts, each giving exp. There won't ever be a "two hours of fighting without reward" because a°) the simple fact that the devs want objective-exp means they don't want such scenarios of long ass boring fights, and b°) you will get your exp.

 

What you won't get is the exp for each different 'kills', but XP when, for example you have "taken care of the monster blocking the passage" or "taken care of the demon wanting your soul", and so on. You will still get that exp, man.

 

Provided that's how it works, sure. But in practice, setting such nuanced and detailed objectives requires carefully scripting the entire game. That brings with it its own set of issues, the greatest of which is that there is a lot less room for 'free form' gameplay. Sure, at a certain level it all becomes the same thing - after all, exp gain for monster killing is equivalent to making every monster a mini objective. But the principle behind how you set the level at which the objectives exist is what's at stake here. The way Sawyer was talking, one gets the idea that he wanted to control the way players played the game and only reward them when they are doing a quest.

 

I don't know about you, but when I hear the word quest, I think of things that go into your journal. Exploring a dungeon does not require having a quest in that dungeon, and having to assign a hackneyed 'explore the dungeon' quest to a player each time he enters a dungeon is just another form of gameplay degeneracy.

[Arkeus]

 

I don't know about you, but when I hear the word quest, I think of things that go into your journal. Exploring a dungeon does not require having a quest in that dungeon, and having to assign a hackneyed 'explore the dungeon' quest to a player each time he enters a dungeon is just another form of gameplay degeneracy.

I recall Sawyer talking about objectives and sub-objectives, including a specfic example of a "kill that monster in the wild".

[MaximKat]

Take, for example, Dragon Age Origin's Deep Roads segment. That slug fest of an area is barely tolerable with exp gain, because you are at the minimum progressing your characters for each darkspawn you kill. Without exp gain, it is unbearable, because it becomes just a tedious chore that you have to do to get to the next objective of the game, which is several hours off.

In addition to what has already been said about no one suggesting to remove rewards for combat oriented tasks in general (where does this idea even come from?), I find it funny how you talk about not wanting to discuss degenerate cases and then go on and suggest a degenerate case of your own: hours long grindfest that adds nothing to the game. How is "something is good because it makes ****ty parts of the game marginally less ****ty" a good argument?

 

I don't know about you, but when I hear the word quest, I think of things that go into your journal.

That's why some of us have spent 22 pages trying to explain that objective =/= quest. Edited October 17, 2012 by MaximKat

[AwesomeOcelot]

My favourite model is killings mobs gives loot, and tiny xp, and most xp comes from quests. That also makes it way easier to balance for less lethal play styles.

[Mazhlekov]

My favourite model is killings mobs gives loot, and tiny xp, and most xp comes from quests. That also makes it way easier to balance for less lethal play styles.

Very balanced...

I voted For, because most of the times when I play I find my self killing only because I need XP for the next LVL.

I have an idea about the killing in the game:

If we have a carma-meter and it changes only from killing/saving someone/something there will be a whole new ways of gameplay. Probably it will be possible to complete the game without a single kill and it will be a great challange with epic rewards or unique ending!

[lolaldanee]

I'm strongly in favour of this solution - because it makes all playstyles equally viable.

this

[Azarkon]

Take, for example, Dragon Age Origin's Deep Roads segment. That slug fest of an area is barely tolerable with exp gain, because you are at the minimum progressing your characters for each darkspawn you kill. Without exp gain, it is unbearable, because it becomes just a tedious chore that you have to do to get to the next objective of the game, which is several hours off.

In addition to what has already been said about no one suggesting to remove rewards for combat oriented tasks in general (where does this idea even come from?), I find it funny how you talk about not wanting to discuss degenerate cases and then go on and suggest a degenerate case of your own: hours long grindfest that adds nothing to the game. How is "something is good because it makes ****ty parts of the game marginally less ****ty" a good argument?

 

Fine, then a better example is wilderness exploration in Baldur's Gate - no objectives involved but your own curiosity and desire for adventure, with exp and loot from slain monsters / cleared dungeons being the only rewards for doing so. How do you script combat objectives into exploration without making it feel artificial and rail roaded?

[Azarkon]

I don't know about you, but when I hear the word quest, I think of things that go into your journal. Exploring a dungeon does not require having a quest in that dungeon, and having to assign a hackneyed 'explore the dungeon' quest to a player each time he enters a dungeon is just another form of gameplay degeneracy.

I recall Sawyer talking about objectives and sub-objectives, including a specfic example of a "kill that monster in the wild".

 

This is what he said, and what I'm going off of -

 

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.

 

Gameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it. Rest spamming is one example. Wholesale slaughter/genocide is another. Quests that involve a peaceful option to resolve that get turned around after completion when the player murders the saved parties is a familiar expression of this sort of degeneration. If XP is linked to quests and objectives within quests, the player has much more freedom to resolve those quests in whatever way he or she wants, whether that means talking through it, fighting, sneaking around, or using some mixture of skills/scripted environment objects to reach the goal.

 

I don't see a mention of objectives outside of quests here.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Azarkon

[The Guilty Party]

Take, for example, Dragon Age Origin's Deep Roads segment. That slug fest of an area is barely tolerable with exp gain, because you are at the minimum progressing your characters for each darkspawn you kill. Without exp gain, it is unbearable, because it becomes just a tedious chore that you have to do to get to the next objective of the game, which is several hours off.

In addition to what has already been said about no one suggesting to remove rewards for combat oriented tasks in general (where does this idea even come from?), I find it funny how you talk about not wanting to discuss degenerate cases and then go on and suggest a degenerate case of your own: hours long grindfest that adds nothing to the game. How is "something is good because it makes ****ty parts of the game marginally less ****ty" a good argument?

 

Fine, then a better example is wilderness exploration in Baldur's Gate - no objectives involved but your own curiosity and desire for adventure, with exp and loot from slain monsters / cleared dungeons being the only rewards for doing so. How do you script combat objectives into exploration without making it feel artificial and rail roaded?

 

Well, if you get experience for exploring or finding Interesting Locations, then there you go. Or there's a bounty on gnome-ears. Or there are people you meet in the wilderness that supply quests, items, interesting interaction, etc. Maybe there are trails you find that people with Survivalist skills can track and find dens of bandits.

 

There's many, many ways to make wilderness exploration interesting and useful as a game mechanic. The fact that you can't come up with them doesn't mean they don't exist.