Experience Inequality

[Rahkir]

Is experience inequality, in every situation, always bad? There have been many discussions over the experience mechanics in PE and this question seems to be underlying all debates. Should all choices in a situation give the same or very similar experience? Many people seem to assume yes.

 

I've seen this reason: once people learn the 'most beneficial' way they will always do that. With onreadig this assumes that in every instance diplomacy or combat will offer greater rewards. This is not necessarily true. Potentially, sometimes combat could reward greater than diplomacy and the reverse. What about concurrent play throughs, some might ask? I don't think a game like PE should be designed from the point of restricting power gaming. Are people who want to role play the second run through aos a diplomat going to pick the combat solution because it "gave more rewards" last time? And if a person wants to play a sociopath who will do whatever it takes to get the best rewards, cool!

 

Ultimately to me it doesn't seem logical to say every possible solution to a problem gives the same amount of exp and I don't think it should; so long as throughout the entirety of the game we have enough rewarding options for each 'style' at various points. Sometimes a cunning diplomat -is- going to get more than an uncharasmatic, yet incredibly skilled, thief. Implementing a way for every style to get every reward leads to linear and restricted design.

 

Feel free to disagree with my reasoning and discuss.

[eselle28]

I don't mind inequality in particular quests as long as things average out roughly the same over an entire area, or an entire act.

 

There will always be people who powergame at every opportunity, and if someone wants to play with a guide that tells them which response yields the most experience, so be it. If they're bored by the end of the game because they've bought everything that's for sale and all of the fights seem easy, that's the result of their choices.

 

My main concern is making sure that people who pick what appear to be reasonable character archetypes (the physically strong but low intelligence fighter, the charmer who hates fighting and tries to talk his way out of trouble whenever possible) don't end up in situations where they have too little experience to successfully complete quests and either need to start over or to grind. To the extent the game makes sure that doesn't happen, I don't think every choice needs to end up with exactly the same experience or gold reward.

[Karkarov]

Why shouldn't it? Objective, break into an enemy stronghold. You can stealth your way in, fast talk or bribe some guards, maybe even get through based on character affiliation with a specific faction or just overall fame, lastly maybe you just kill everyone who tries to stop you. No matter what you did you broke into the enemy stronghold, same objective, same exp reward.

 

The difference comes in the path you used. Fast talking might have required a bribe, so it was simple, easy, and quick but cost you money. Stealth may have been time consuming and "tough" but you got inside without losing anything and maybe start off in a better location to proceed with your goals. Faction rank or fame had to be achieved, likely you earned a lot of money or privileges in the process which are their own rewards, and you probably had to spend more time playing up to that point on side content. Combat probably makes the whole process tough going once you get inside and may see you wounded or in a bad starting position for future goals in the stronghold, however you got yourself some loot off those dead guys didn't you?

 

Each path already has plenty of risk/reward mixed in to result in very different situations and overall player status without exp ever entering the equation.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Karkarov

[jivex5k]

It's an interesting train of thought.

I think they should focus on keeping the options for completing a quest as a good fit for said quest.

If your quest is to defeat a dragon or something less lame, their shouldn't be a way to pickpocket a victory.

If the dragons in the world talk and what not, maybe you could talk him into leaving though, that would fit depending on the dragon.

If dragons are complete **** and just eat everything, well talking shouldn't be an option to complete the quest.

 

In my mind the XP reward has little to do with the decision to allow a certain type of quest completion.

[JOG]

If dragons are complete **** and just eat everything, well talking shouldn't be an option to complete the quest.

 

Think outside the box: go to the nearby giant tribe and talk them into killing the dragon.

 

A main problem of cRPGs is that injuries are irrelevant, 8 hours rest, one potion, one spell and you're as good as new, so most likely we would fight the dragon *and* the whole giant tribe. When wounds heal only slowly, and are more than just a bit inconvenient, the extra XP for actually valiantly fighting the dragon would be well deserved..

[Aldereth]

No big problem with different xp for different approach. You do not want a path where the PC is significantly gimped because of its choices. So it is going to be more of a balance issue than simulating reality/life.

[Rahkir]

Why shouldn't it? Objective, break into an enemy stronghold. You can stealth your way in, fast talk or bribe some guards, maybe even get through based on character affiliation with a specific faction or just overall fame, lastly maybe you just kill everyone who tries to stop you. No matter what you did you broke into the enemy stronghold, same objective, same exp

 

That implies all of the paths are linear from a to b. What if you literally can't just force your six man group into a well defended strong hold? You'll need to pursue other means (maybe by getting outside help, etc. then using force (like a trojan horse)). Or are you saying every single obstacle in the game should be directly solvable by combat, stealth and diplomacy? That is what I said leads to linear a to b design. Moreover diplomacy is going to be impossible at times. So will stealth. What if your opponent doesnt care what you say? What if someone breaks into your inn room and attacks you? Is the "stealth" solution to hide under the covers? What if there's a hostage situation and you can't save the hostage by brute force but you can by stealth/diplomacy (which may also require more time, thinking and planning); should you get the same reward either way?

That is; is the objective to save the hostage? If yes, combat would fail. Are there two different objectives? Save the hostage or exterminate the kidnappers, if so are they both of equivalent challenge and if not, should the reward be the same regardless?

[The Guilty Party]

If you reward a particular path/choice more than a different one, most players are going to choose it, and will feel 'punished' for trying to play the game as they want to (i.e., role-playing, which is in theory the whole point).

 

So overall, rewards should be mostly equivalent for different paths that achieve the same thing.

 

That doesn't mean there isn't room for variation. If you take your smelly, noisy dwarf on the stealth mission, or your crude elf on your diplomacy mission, maybe you don't get the Big Success and you get worse rewards. Which is fair enough. But if you successfully steal what you need to steal and aren't caught, or successfully charm away the same item with your winning diplomacy skills, I don't see why they shouldn't get the same reward.

[Rahkir]

If you reward a particular path/choice more than a different one, most players are going to choose it, and will feel 'punished' for trying to play the game as they want to (i.e., role-playing, which is in theory the whole point).

The way I see it, that is only valid if one looks at a walkthrough or is playing the game for the nth time. There should be no external indicator that says "This options give more rewards!" for every choice in the game. The point is you don't know what choice is more rewarding, just like the character you're roleplaying doesn't. You can use logic to try and figure it out, but you usually won't have absolute certainty without external information.

If all paths give the same reward, doesn't that make it even harder to roleplay? Should a mage casting invisibility on the party, then walking past all of the enemies, grant as much objective reward in terms of skill to the party compared to if the whole party employs strategies together and fights their way through? Edit for clarification; this wasn't rhetoric, I don't know the answers.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Rahkir

[Adhin]

I think 'rewards' and xp should be separate and that's ultimately the only part of the equation I feel should be equal for everything, the actual XP delivered out. But I also don't think XP should only show up at the end of a quest, sure might as well be at that point to but should be for progressing in any manner of things. Made it to the second level of a dungeon, xp. Defeated a random encounter, either via talking your way out, sneaking past, intimidate half of em to run or just murdered all of em? Same Xp for 'dealing with the encounter'. Rewards though is another matter and are a tad more... well a bit less important, and, if you have multiple sides to a quest with multiple outcomes it makes sense to give different though generally comparable loot rewards. Maybe ones just money, maybe ones bonus money for being a horrible person. That I get, but when you end up the game 3-5 lvls lower because you didn't pick the optimal path while still doing all the quest, it feels a little more cheated.

 

Anything I've said in posts about XP dishing out thats ultimately all I've been talking about, evening out xp growth irregardless of the outcomes...cause really why should intimidating give less or more experience then killing all or sneaking around? XP is just character progression, which is ultimately meant to match story progression. Being less or higher level at the end of the game should be a representation of how much extra sutff you did in general, not that you picked some bizar optimal path with in those extra things.

[Karkarov]

That implies all of the paths are linear from a to b. What if you literally can't just force your six man group into a well defended strong hold? You'll need to pursue other means (maybe by getting outside help, etc. then using force (like a trojan horse)). Or are you saying every single obstacle in the game should be directly solvable by combat, stealth and diplomacy? That is what I said leads to linear a to b design. Moreover diplomacy is going to be impossible at times. So will stealth. What if your opponent doesnt care what you say? What if someone breaks into your inn room and attacks you? Is the "stealth" solution to hide under the covers? What if there's a hostage situation and you can't save the hostage by brute force but you can by stealth/diplomacy (which may also require more time, thinking and planning); should you get the same reward either way?

That is; is the objective to save the hostage? If yes, combat would fail. Are there two different objectives? Save the hostage or exterminate the kidnappers, if so are they both of equivalent challenge and if not, should the reward be the same regardless?

 

Oh course it is linear, the objective is get in the stronghold. You can't complete the objective without actually entering the stronghold and by definition that forces you to go inside. If that is too linear for you I suggest you stop playing RPG's entirely. Nor does anything you say have any bearing on my point. All routes lead to the "objective" being completed but had different rewards or penalties based on what you did. Just the EXP was the same. Want to make combat not an option? Ok, what's your point? So you can't "fight your way in" you had to do something else. You should still get the same exp regardless of what path you choose. Whatever options are left still have different benefits and penalties.

 

So stop taking everything to the inth ultra literal degree and instead focus on the actual point. Exp is just one way of rewarding the player and all these different playstyle options already have enough separating them in method, "cost", efficiency, and result that making exp different too is just not necessary. Also for all these people going on about power gaming, all rewarding one method more than another does is.... encourage power gaming. Something they already said they don't want to do.

 

Making one option give more exp than another option in a RPG based on objective based exp rewards is not a good idea.

[Volourn]

Every game I've ever played with xp per battle (plus other sources of xp) you almost always end up within the same level range anyways. That just isn't an issue, imo.

[nikolokolus]

I'm all for varying physical or faction rewards (and even penalties) for achieving an objective in a different way, but the experience award should be the same.

[Hassat Hunter]

Considering I am a heavy pro-fighter for this in various discussions, I think this is pretty much aimed to me (even if it isn't, it sounds that way).

So... let's explain.

 

Yes, I think it's a good idea to allow people get the same rewards (XP-wise that is) for the same objective, regardless of execution. That way everything is viable, there is no one way better than the other. The 3-way stealth, tech and combat is a classic one, but nothing says each objective has the exact 3 options. It could have less. It could have more. Heck, it might even have only one of them, in which case this wont be an issue since the reward is the same anway . But your build shouldn't get gimped just because another way is rewarded properly and you're being left out, even if the game promises it as a proper way to play.

If a game allows you to play and supports a cunning conversationalist play, it shouldn't harm your XP so much that if you eventually do get forced in combat, you're levels below the intended value for that encounter.

 

It might not be entirely realistic, however it does support the broadest amount of potential roles. It allows you to play your strengths, avoid your weaknesses. And not be awarded or suffer for it if you're just doing what has to be done. Want more XP, find more objectives. It's easy as that. It's not like you're really running out soon. Eventually everyone hits the cap, this just determines that it happens for about all builds the same. And the most influential will be not your build, but how much you actually do. People often complain that objective-based XP ruins exploration (not sure their reasoning) but if you can't grind on the same monsters and such, if you are stuck and need more XP, you really have no choice but to explore. As it should be, as going out and finding new things to experience should be your EXPERIENCE... not murdering the same things over and over.

 

Some inequality could be part of specific build-based goals, such as killing the dragon, which the pacifistic obviously wouldn't do, or the murder trial, which requires good social skills to complete. However if builds do the same (which will mainly be the case in the main quest and a portion of the sidequests) it should be pretty equal IMO.

[Gromnir]

If you reward a particular path/choice more than a different one, most players are going to choose it, and will feel 'punished' for trying to play the game as they want to (i.e., role-playing, which is in theory the whole point).

 

The way I see it, that is only valid if one looks at a walkthrough or is playing the game for the nth time. There should be no external indicator that says "This options give more rewards!" for every choice in the game. The point is you don't know what choice is more rewarding, just like the character you're roleplaying doesn't. You can use logic to try and figure it out, but you usually won't have absolute certainty without external information.

If all paths give the same reward, doesn't that make it even harder to roleplay? Should a mage casting invisibility on the party, then walking past all of the enemies, grant as much objective reward in terms of skill to the party compared to if the whole party employs strategies together and fights their way through? Edit for clarification; this wasn't rhetoric, I don't know the answers.

 

should different styles of play grant same experience rewards? and that ain't rhetorical?

 

...

 

answer: yes. doesn't take much power o' observation for the average gamer to be recognizing that killing stuff in Game X gets you more exp than does sneaking and opening locks. likewise, a gamer that is seeing that he don't get any benefit from killing every goblin and snark he comes across in Game Y will begin to avoid such ridiculous behaviour in favor of saving ammo and healing potions. knowing that there ain't a best build means people actually play what seems kewl rather than what seems most efficacious. different people will have many different notions o' kewl 'cause that is subjective. most powerful build is largely objective... only a handful o' most powerful builds.

 

furthermore. gamers will attempt to game the game... they will look for an advantage. is natural. point of a game is to win, right? 'course, these games is designed to be beatable. impulse to try and win is unnecessary and often leads to counter-intuitive frustration. successful building a world-beater character means game is easier than it otherwise would be, and a game that is too easy is boring.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[teknoman2]

Why shouldn't it? Objective, break into an enemy stronghold. You can stealth your way in, fast talk or bribe some guards, maybe even get through based on character affiliation with a specific faction or just overall fame, lastly maybe you just kill everyone who tries to stop you. No matter what you did you broke into the enemy stronghold, same objective, same exp reward.

 

The difference comes in the path you used. Fast talking might have required a bribe, so it was simple, easy, and quick but cost you money. Stealth may have been time consuming and "tough" but you got inside without losing anything and maybe start off in a better location to proceed with your goals. Faction rank or fame had to be achieved, likely you earned a lot of money or privileges in the process which are their own rewards, and you probably had to spend more time playing up to that point on side content. Combat probably makes the whole process tough going once you get inside and may see you wounded or in a bad starting position for future goals in the stronghold, however you got yourself some loot off those dead guys didn't you?

 

Each path already has plenty of risk/reward mixed in to result in very different situations and overall player status without exp ever entering the equation.

this is how it should be.

different xp for different approach brings us back to the senseless and endless debate about combat xp or various xp gains by various menial actions or not. to balance the game, the same goal should give the same xp reward regardless of the way you completed it. the variations would consist of losing or gaining fame and standing, getting or missing loot, how hard it was to do it, maybe long term consequences for choosing this or that method and so on

[Kane_Severance]

More difficult skill checks really should offer better rewards. If you've created a character that invested very heavily in intelligence and specific skills, you've had to make sacrifices in other areas. You should have occasion to show off your expertise in dialog or quest solutions and be rewarded for doing so.

 

I think Fallout 2 provided some good examples of this, specifically in Vault City. Having a very high Science skill let you have some unique insights and solutions to some of the problems people had.

 

Edit: Also, when you make rewards the same across the board, everything starts to feel the same. One solution would be to make rewards differ in other ways than just xp. Maybe one solution provides extra income or an item, another might provide a large xp bonus but piss off the NPC to the point they aren't willing to deal with you further. Trying too hard to make everything perfectly balanced severely limits replayability because it means your choices matter less.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Kane_Severance

[teknoman2]

only xp rewards should be the same regardless of method used.

you are asked to get rid of the dragon that lives near the town.

if you can kill him, you can get crafting materials plus his hoard and the reward from the mayor. also your reputaion with the humans goes up but the dragons hate you

if you can make him leave peacefully you get the mayor's money and you get a reputation as a dragon friend, making future dealings with dragons easier. also your reputation with the humans increases

if you can't do either, but enlist the help of some giants, they kill the dragon, they get his hoard, you get the materials, the mayor's reward and a better reputation with the giants and the humans. since it wasnt you who killed him, you lose no standings with the dragons

if the dragon wants the town obliterated and you choose to help him do it instead of making him leave, you loot the town, get rewarded by the dragon, get big reputation bonus with the dragons and lose a lot with the humans

in all of the above cases, when the quest ends you get 10k xp

see how easy it is to vary the results without having to change the xp gained?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't mind inequality concerning a few quests here and there, the problem arises when one particular "alignment" gets consistently "punished" and another gets consistently "rewarded". If the "evil" acts consistently get fewer rewards than the "good" acts in EVERY scenario there is a problem.

[Gatt9]

If you reward a particular path/choice more than a different one, most players are going to choose it, and will feel 'punished' for trying to play the game as they want to (i.e., role-playing, which is in theory the whole point).

 

So overall, rewards should be mostly equivalent for different paths that achieve the same thing.

 

That doesn't mean there isn't room for variation. If you take your smelly, noisy dwarf on the stealth mission, or your crude elf on your diplomacy mission, maybe you don't get the Big Success and you get worse rewards. Which is fair enough. But if you successfully steal what you need to steal and aren't caught, or successfully charm away the same item with your winning diplomacy skills, I don't see why they shouldn't get the same reward.

 

Disagree. If all paths result in the same reward, then the best path becomes the fastest path. There's always a best path.

 

Worse, that just makes the choice of approach trivial. It becomes Mass Effect 2 and 3. It doesn't really matter what you do, you end up with the same result anyways.

 

They should get different rewards because it's unreasonable to assume that all approaches have equivalent difficulty in achieving them. Talking someone out of something may be significantly more difficult than stealing it from them, and killing them might be alot more difficult than either (Or might be easier). The reward should reflect the difficulty in achieving the results with the path that was chosen.

 

IMO, making all approaches equivalent ultimately makes the choice of approach irrelevant, and thusly makes the option to choose irrelevant since you're going to get the same thing no matter what you do.

[Gromnir]

If you reward a particular path/choice more than a different one, most players are going to choose it, and will feel 'punished' for trying to play the game as they want to (i.e., role-playing, which is in theory the whole point).

 

So overall, rewards should be mostly equivalent for different paths that achieve the same thing.

 

That doesn't mean there isn't room for variation. If you take your smelly, noisy dwarf on the stealth mission, or your crude elf on your diplomacy mission, maybe you don't get the Big Success and you get worse rewards. Which is fair enough. But if you successfully steal what you need to steal and aren't caught, or successfully charm away the same item with your winning diplomacy skills, I don't see why they shouldn't get the same reward.

 

Disagree. If all paths result in the same reward, then the best path becomes the fastest path.

 

really? fastest is best?

 

...

 

clearly we has been playing these games all wrong.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[teknoman2]

If you reward a particular path/choice more than a different one, most players are going to choose it, and will feel 'punished' for trying to play the game as they want to (i.e., role-playing, which is in theory the whole point).

 

So overall, rewards should be mostly equivalent for different paths that achieve the same thing.

 

That doesn't mean there isn't room for variation. If you take your smelly, noisy dwarf on the stealth mission, or your crude elf on your diplomacy mission, maybe you don't get the Big Success and you get worse rewards. Which is fair enough. But if you successfully steal what you need to steal and aren't caught, or successfully charm away the same item with your winning diplomacy skills, I don't see why they shouldn't get the same reward.

 

Disagree. If all paths result in the same reward, then the best path becomes the fastest path. There's always a best path.

 

Worse, that just makes the choice of approach trivial. It becomes Mass Effect 2 and 3. It doesn't really matter what you do, you end up with the same result anyways.

 

They should get different rewards because it's unreasonable to assume that all approaches have equivalent difficulty in achieving them. Talking someone out of something may be significantly more difficult than stealing it from them, and killing them might be alot more difficult than either (Or might be easier). The reward should reflect the difficulty in achieving the results with the path that was chosen.

 

IMO, making all approaches equivalent ultimately makes the choice of approach irrelevant, and thusly makes the option to choose irrelevant since you're going to get the same thing no matter what you do.

you can add a hundred variables besides the reward when it comes to show the result of the actions the character performed. it doesnt have to be the reward itself.

but even if it is the imediate reward that changes, the variables are still there changing what you can or can not do later.

you can do things to maximize your reward from your current quest, but that may block out your access to other more rewarding quests. in the end it's all about balancing the game to keep any approach from being a better choice than the rest.

Edited October 24, 2012 by teknoman2

[teknoman2]

I think that rewards, including experience, should be different for different approach depending on the task given.

Also taking the consideration of character stats and skills if applicable.

For example in simple task obtaining a key from an orc the experience should be about the same whether you kill/intimidate/pickpocket him (but the consequences should vary).

But in more complex quest this can look different. For example.

You are approached by a man telling you that he and this other guy both have a key to open a hidden treasure. He needs both but don't want to part with half of the treasure which the other guy demands. But he will offer you to kill the other guy for 10% share. Now the task at hand is obtaining the key. And my question is, should the player get the same amount of experience if he:

a) Kills the other guy and obtain the key

b) Talk to the other guy and get a better deal (like 20%) for killing the first guy and going for it

c) Bargain with both to get the best cut (when both of them are offering 50% or better for killing the other guy)

d) Like c) but passes the intelligence test to answer to them that they are offering you more (or the same) for killing one another than for splitting the treasure leading to them coming to an agreement

e) Killing both of them for the keys and realizing that you have no idea where the treasure is (player hoped to get a map on the body)

In this case I think that the experience reward (among other rewards like reputation for killing someone or share of the treasure) should be different regarding of the fact of "finishing the task" successfully.

i dont think it should, but if it did, the variation should come in conjunction with what the result of your choice will be later on in the game. in your example D would be the hardest to achieve, therefore it should have the highest reward, while E would practicaly get you no reward at all, making the gameplay biased toward the "being the good guy is better" style

[teknoman2]

i dont think it should, but if it did, the variation should come in conjunction with what the result of your choice will be later on in the game. in your example D would be the hardest to achieve, therefore it should have the highest reward, while E would practically get you no reward at all, making the gameplay biased toward the "being the good guy is better" style

 

I don't agree, the E example i making the statement that "being stupid is stupid" style There can be more options like killing one guy and killing the other after he shows you to treasure etc. Which would get "being evil and smart" as best option for this quest.

Why killing the guy for 10% of share should give the same exp as killing the guy for 50% with bargaining? Or taking the longer road to achieve more? For me the more I get involved and the more options I tried to finish the task the more reward should I get. Thats the way RPG works since PnP!

The repercussions for any approach should of course also vary.

of course, but if the repercussions do not penalize you later for choosing the highest reward solution, then we fall to the trap of having a play style that is better than the rest for every quest. and that invites power play killing role play in the process.

[RaketenRichard]

I think there should be some base xp for completing a quest and then some (optional) revard in forms of loot, reputation, story and/or xp for the chosen method.