Thoughts on Experience

[Osvir]

I've had some thoughts on experience (most of it gathered up in my wall of text in my signature though) and how I view experience.

 

I am slightly concerned about P:E (as thus far revealed) being tied to Objective Based experience. I like it a lot, but I'm also scratching my head about it; "Are there more ways to improve it?". Now I don't realize to what extent this is going to be implemented and "How", merely just discussing and sharing some thoughts on what I see could be an issue.. to the point:

 

Being rewarded after getting from point A to point G. I experience a lot during the journey between A and G (B, C, D, E, F), but I will only be rewarded at G, when I have fully completed the objective. Which to me feels more like a "temp-work" kind of dealio. I contracted this job and I will only be paid at the end of it.

 

That is what concerns me. My character going through the dungeon, facing enemies, solving mysteries and riddles, finding books, items and equipment making my character slightly stronger, but won't level up until I have finished the dungeon and returned to the surface.

 

I view the "Objective/Quest Experience" as "Character/Player Experience", or even "Spiritual Experience". Life Experience. Insight Experience and so on. I would like to see the Character Experience and the Combat Experience differ, being two different experience tables. What your character does in the world, in terms of quests and objectives, makes your character grow in knowledge, in reputation (how the world sees you), in insight, understanding of the world, exploration and so on. Your character becomes more devoted into their Class, their way of life, as they explore the world. All "Character Experience". It doesn't define any "Physical Aspects" but only the "Mental Aspects".

 

Knowing in theory how to swing a sword will make it easier for you to understand how to swing a sword, but will you swing a sword better because of it if you've never swung a sword before? No. You're going to be a noob like everyone else, you might be a better noob or a worse noob, the point is that you are still going to be a noob with that sword. You might learn faster, or you might learn slower depending on pre-knowledge and research.

 

The concern I have is exactly that, with a Quest based Experience system the issue could become that my character is suddenly a Master Swordsman, regardless of Class. "Poof" like a magical smoke out of nowhere.

 

Drawing a parallel to Baldur's Gate:

Baldur's Gate has both, that both defines Character Experience and Combat Experience. It is one pool. What I am suggesting is splitting up the character in 2, but keep the way experience is gained like the IE games.

 

BG: Quest+Combat = Leveling up 1 Experience Pool.

 

The proposal/Suggestion:

Quest = Levels up the Character/Class

Combat = Levels up Combat skills

 

--------------

Conceptual (Numbers are conceptual as well):

In the IE games you take down an enemy to get 15 Experience. Your character has now 15/1000 experience to level up. As proposed, you'd still be at 0/500 experience to level up your character, but have 15/500 on combat aspects.

 

Experience Graph

IE:

15/1000 Experience

 

Proposal:

15/500 Combat Exp

0/500 Character Exp

 

P:E (as far I know it):

N/A Combat Exp

 

--------------

Likewise, in the IE games, finishing a Quest in those games you get perhaps 450 Experience, adding up with the pool of defeating monsters you would be at 465/1000 Experience to level, whilst as proposed you would have 450/500 experience to level up your Class, and 15/500 experience to level up your weapon.

 

Experience Graph

IE:

465/1000 Experience

 

Proposal:

15/500 Combat Exp

450/500 Character Exp

 

P:E (as far as I know it)

N/A Combat Exp

450/1000

 

--------------

Perhaps the level of the Character could decide (accordingly) how fast your Combat experience grows. If you have a Level 4 Sword Experience and a Level 8 Fighter, but you want to play with a Mace instead (and it's level 1), the Mace could grow at x2-x3 times experience up to a certain point (so that Bandit that gave 15 experience is instead giving 30-45 experience). Just to make you be able to catch up with another weapon and specialize in more than one combat aspect.

 

How does this balance the game? More importantly, how does this balance the classes?

 

Your Rogue can be a level 5 Rogue, with specialized Combat making your Rogue a more adept sneaky bastard or a straight out close-combat martial artist. It could even make your level 5 Rogue an Adept in Magic, a Rogzard (Rogue/Wizard). Your Fighter would become a level 5 Fighter, but not at all specialized in close combat, or just so. Perhaps being an excellent tank, or a weak magical buffer. Or heck, even your level 5 Fighter is a Fighter but roleplayingly he could be seen as a Level 5 Paladin Trainee (due to his combat prowess and direction you chose to upgrade/level him).

Edited December 14, 2012 by Osvir

[DreamDancer]

I think this is an interesting proposal and kinda ties in with their seperation of combat and non-combat skills. In a typical game where you have just one pool you can indeed do a lot of side quests and/or main quests that involve mostly leg work or social skills and gain 1 or 2 levels, then spend all points in a fighting skill and suddenly youre a veteran fighter without having drawn your weapon once.

 

I admit, I have always hoped for a seperation of social exp and combat exp, social in this case meaning everything from quest objective exp, to solving puzzles and succeeding in dialogue skill checks. With a system like this it would also finally pay off to be more of a diplomat and focus on social exp and skills.

[Osvir]

It was explained before, there are different objectives big and small. If you have a quest like: venturing the dungeon, you will get exp after finishing it, but inside the dungeon you will get other exp for things you do in the dungeon.

 

Alright cool. Does this only apply to the dungeon within the dungeon? (The game itself is a "dungeon", metaphorically speaking)

 

Does it apply to world map traveling as well, "Surface" exploring. In cities or whatnot, or is this "In-Dungeon" experience only for "In-Dungeon"?

[Gfted1]

Havent they stated in yet another mechanical revision (to prevent people from farming experience ) that gaining experience from killing mooks is out? With that in mind it seems you will always have to complete before gaining experience.

[Osvir]

^And that is exactly my concern.

[jivex5k]

I think there will be enough small objectives to keep your party in line with enemies.

Getting XP is satisfying.

Learning new abilities and getting better stats is fun.

I doubt they will make XP scarce.

Edited December 14, 2012 by jivex5k

[Rabain]

This is more about how they do it than how often they do it. I don't really want XP every 5 seconds for "walking around a corner" or "picking up a weapon" etc. I want my XP to be meaningful and yes XP for kills is meaningful, I killed something, I have improved in my ability to kill, eventually that will be reflected by levelling up and having points to spend or stats to boost or whatever.

 

What I don't want is some ambiguous reward that I'm not sure why I got it. For example if I have a quest to kill the evil mage do I get the XP when I kill the mage or when I hand the quest in? Or do I get some XP for both? Will the quest auto-complete when the mage is dead and I get XP for that objective...that would be bad from my point of view, immersion breaking.

 

All I want from this system is for my actions to feel rewarding and for the rewards to not be arbitrarily handed out based on some ambiguous formula I have no clue about. If I can sneak past a group of enemies or kill them I think it would be bad if I killed them all and then only got XP after crossing some imaginary line on the ground that defines the point where XP is handed out if you had of sneaked past instead.

 

The only downside I can see to Osvirs Combat XP separation is that players who want to play a more stealthy, sneaky or diplomatic character could be gimped in combat later in the game because of their choice of how they play. And lets face it, eventually you will be forced into combat no matter how you play.

[Gfted1]

^But why is that even an issue? Unless youre soloing the game or playing an entire party of rogues, you wont be able to sneak the whole party through a room anyway. So you sneak your rogue through and then what? The unsneaky party members will have to kill their way through. Am I missing something here? Is this entire mechanic to prevent the player from sneaking one guy throught the room and getting experience for that but when the rest of the group kills their way through they dont want you to "double dip" on experience? Realistically, how often does that happen that you have ro remake an entire mechanic?

[Gfted1]

^ maybe you don't have to get the whole party through the room. Maybe you only need to sent the rogue to snatch an item and get back. And how can you know you wouldn't be able to sneak past with party of mage, barbarian, fighter, cleric and ranger? Do you know the mechanics? Please share if you do. Invisibility potions, spells, items, so on their name is Legion.

 

C'mon, were just people chatting, you dont have to get your Sawyer Defence Mode all riled up. We can simply use common sense to determine that EVERY class isnt going to have an ability to sneak.

 

And what do you mean by remake? This is the first game in the (probably) series and this is how Obsidian plans to make the experience mechanics. They are not remaking anything they making it this way.

 

Remake as in completely and utterly the exact opposite of every IE game ever made. You know, the inspiration to PE.

[Gfted1]

Wait a minute, are you implying that gaining experience for kills is owned by Hasbro? People should pay attention when trying to be smarty pantses.

 

This game was sold as being the spiritual successor to the IE series. As far as I can tell that was complete marketspeak as the only thing that seems to have carried over is the isometric perspective.

[Gfted1]

Where exactly did I imply it? Don't get Obama on me because you lack of arguments and try to put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

 

Um, right here, two posts up:

 

How excluding experience awards from killing is making "completely and utterly exact opposite" of mechanics is beyond me.

Obsidian doesn't have the rights to DnD so the mechanics cannot be the same and this was clear from the beginning that they cannot use the exact same mechanics.

 

Are you even paying attention to your own posts? If youre just trollin the day away, thats fine, just dont waste my time. Also, whats "dont get Obama" mean?

 

That's a bull**** statement. Read what spiritual successor means. For now the objective based experience rewards are the only difference Obsidian plan to made.

 

Project Eternitywill 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.

 

Every rpg offers a "hero", "companions" and "exploration". By invoking the IE name they new exactly how that would be taken by the consumers. Throwing every single mechanic those games offered out the window all in the name of saving the player from "degenerately" playing their single player game is the true bull****.

[maggotheart]

I think this overcomplicates the system, especially when we will already have separate progression for combat vs non combat skills. It's true that from a realism standpoint, it doesn't make much sense that my combat skills would progress when I have been solving objectives using my non-combat skills, but personally I would rather have a streamlined system (one XP pool) than an overly realistic one.

 

From reading the interviews, it sounds like the goal will be for every class to be viable in combat and non-combat, which will allow the player to decide how he wants to solve an encounter: in whichever way seems the most fun and rewarding that is within the capability of the character. Splitting the XP pools seems like I would then be forced to consider which aspect of my character I want to progress when faced with each encounter, rather than simply using what skills I have however I want to use them and then making those decisions on levelup. I'd rather not inject metagaming into every single encounter. The new system seems to just want to eliminate grinding, which is fine by me, and if they add in enough sidequests, the party could be fully realized without ever feeling the need to just go slay random mobs for XP.

[Gfted1]

The only person trolling here is you. You don't have arguments so you accusing me of something I didn't say. I said that they cannot use the DnD mechanics, so wanting exact same mechanic as IE game is pointless. I also said that removing one minor important feature is not by any sane means making the mechanics "completely and utterly exact opposite". Where did you find the "Hasbro owns exp for kills" statement is beyond me, I don't know what pills are you taking but you should cut the amounts in half.

 

Pay attention simpleton. Kill experience is not a DnD mechanic. Anyone can use it.

 

You deliberately took away the adjectives for those features, again playing Obama to twist the truth and hide your own incompetence? That's one. Two, I don't see nothing about "exact the same mechanics" in Obsidian statement. Three, the reasons for objective based experience are plenty and explained in details in other topics. Last, I didn't know that "one" and "every single one" became synonyms, since when?

 

I see, you have some axe to grind with Obama. Hilarios, and sad.

 

Of course nobody said "exact same mechanics". None of the mechaincs Im talking about are exclusive to DnD. Anyone can use resting, experience points, saving, healing, etc... It is inferred by invoking the IE name that PE would be similar, which daily is being proven to not be the case. Honestly, youve never played an IE game have you?

[rjshae]

Havent they stated in yet another mechanical revision (to prevent people from farming experience ) that gaining experience from killing mooks is out? With that in mind it seems you will always have to complete <x> before gaining experience.

Instead of XP for killing x creatures, it might be enjoyable to have a combat accomplishment system. Maybe an entire integrated tree of combat accomplishments. You might not rise any higher in level, but, if you, say, kill off a large number of orcs, you could get unique benefits as a result of that Orc Slayer accomplishment. Perhaps a bonus to cause critical damage when attacking orcs, or a bonus to defense when defending against multiple orcs. That in itself is a type of XP gain, almost like a bonus Ranger feat for a favored enemy.

[Osvir]

The only downside I can see to Osvirs Combat XP separation is that players who want to play a more stealthy, sneaky or diplomatic character could be gimped in combat later in the game because of their choice of how they play. And lets face it, eventually you will be forced into combat no matter how you play.

 

But that's just the thing Rabain, if you play a non-lethal approach, you'd be weaker than the combat/action approach, likewise, the combat/action approach would be weaker in dialogue and such. If you want a combat character you play and make a combat character, if you want stealth, diplomacy and charms you make such a character.

 

If you practice sneaking around kitchens for 5 levels you'll be better at sneaking around than if you had battled opponents for 5 levels.

 

You can't expect that those not partaking in fighting gains experience in fighting at the same rate as those who partake. Perhaps tools could be upgraded, things to use in battle to dazzle opponents and sneak past them fast etc. for those who want little to do with combat. Similarly, when you do get into such a combat situation that you can't avoid you'd have to use abilities where your strength in combat would be lacking. Taking down a boss with another method and other sets of tactical formations~ IF similar as to described.

[Gfted1]

I know you usually dont get anything from sneaking but arent successful diplomatic / intelligence / speech checks usually rewarded with experience?

[Somna]

I know you usually dont get anything from sneaking but arent successful diplomatic / intelligence / speech checks usually rewarded with experience?

 

Sure, in Planescape: Torment.

[Gfted1]

So its very rare? (I never play a diplomat)

[Somna]

So its very rare? (I never play a diplomat)

 

Was thinking in IE games. Other games do reward you for avoiding combat, but I'm struggling to come up with examples as blatant as that huge XP mine of a conversation in Planescape:Torment between you, the Paranoid Incarnation, the Practical Incarnation and that other incarnation (who's theme escapes me at the moment). And the XP was huge because you were pretty much re- discovering really important secrets about yourself if you met the stat requirements and chose wisely.

[Labadal]

I doubt you'll only get experience once you turn in or complete an entire quest. My guess is that you'll get experience for clearing objectives for a quest. For minor quests, like kill a monster or something like that, exp will probably be awarded once the monster is killed. Some quests will most likely have many objectives, like they have had in other Obsidian games. Let's say you're supposed to reach a bandit camp that is located in a jungle that is hard to navigate. Let's say the onjectives looks like this:

 

Quest name: Osvir the Mad.

 

1. Find clues about Osvir the Mad's camp. You'll have to ask people around town about clues. You find someone, wich grants you some exp. The camp is in a jungle.

 

2. Find someone who can lead you to the jungle. You ask around and find someone who is willing to help. This grants you some exp.

 

3. Enter the jungle. You enter and gain experience.

 

4. Betrayal in the jungle. Your guide was not a guide, he lead you into a trap. Fight for your lives or talk your way out of the situation. You gain exp.

 

5. Survive the jungle and find the camp entrance. Regular encounters in the jungle give no exp. You finally find one of three entrances to the camp. You gain exp.

 

6. Meet with Osvir the Mad. Talk, sneak or fight your way to Osvir. Gain exp.

 

7. Kill Osvir or help him with his problems. Kill Osvir. Gain exp, but turn camp hostile or help Osvir, no exp yet.

 

8. Help Osvir. Help him, gain info and exp.

 

Quest complete. gain quest completion exp.

[Gfted1]

That was an awesome example.

[Lephys]

That was an awesome example.

 

Seconded!

 

You forgot "Construct large, wooden rabbit, from which your party leaps at night, catching the camp not only by surprise, but also totally unarmed!"

 

(Seriously, though, awesome example.)

 

You don't even have to worry about how much EXP diplomacy use gives as opposed to combat victory, because you're only giving it whenever a given situation is resolved.

[Osvir]

@Sharp_one: Nu-hu!

@Gfted1: Nu-hu!

 

huh?

*yawn*

..zzzz

 

I like Labadal's example too, I also get curious on what do you "spend" the experience on? Like... when you level up. There is still the issue of "sudden" improvement out of the blue (Do I suddenly become a Master Swordsman with no incentive/motive or reason to be one?). Do you get specific experience for the tasks that you do (Speech approach makes your character more Charming, whilst the Fighting approach makes you more Combat oriented).

 

 

I doubt you'll only get experience once you turn in or complete an entire quest. My guess is that you'll get experience for clearing objectives for a quest. For minor quests, like kill a monster or something like that, exp will probably be awarded once the monster is killed. Some quests will most likely have many objectives, like they have had in other Obsidian games. Let's say you're supposed to reach a bandit camp that is located in a jungle that is hard to navigate. Let's say the onjectives looks like this:

 

Quest name: Osvir the Passionately Mad.

 

1. Find clues about Osvir the Mad's camp. You'll have to ask people around town about clues. You find someone, wich grants you some exp. The camp is in a jungle.

 

2. Find someone who can lead you to the jungle. You ask around and find someone who is willing to help. This grants you some exp.

 

3. Enter the jungle. You enter and gain experience.

 

4. Betrayal in the jungle. Your guide was not a guide, he lead you into a trap. Fight for your lives or talk your way out of the situation. You gain exp.

 

5. Survive the jungle and find the camp entrance. Regular encounters in the jungle give no exp. You finally find one of three entrances to the camp. You gain exp.

 

6. Meet with Osvir the Mad. Talk, sneak or fight your way to Osvir. Gain exp.

 

7. Kill Osvir or help him with his problems. Kill Osvir. Gain exp, but turn camp hostile or help Osvir, no exp yet.

 

8. Help Osvir. Help him, gain info and exp.

 

Quest complete. gain quest completion exp.

 

For instance, I play 1-7, which gives me a certain specific reward and possibly a "boost" towards a more combat oriented character, whilst playing 1-6+8 (skipping 7) gives you a reward towards a more "charming" person. I could go into the example step-by-step and if there were "A's" and "B's" on each (e.g., 1a, 1b) the progression of your character could be more easily documented.

 

If you took path 1A you can't take path 1B, and both have a different type of reward making your character stronger specifically as they go along towards that path~

 

No?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Osvir

[Labadal]

Different paths for 1A, 1B, etc could give different amounts of exp, sure. As we'll have regular levelling up, I'm guessing that no matter how you solve a given situation, you will still get your non-combat and combat skillpoints to choose from when you gain a level. At least that is how I understand it from what I have been reading so far.

[Umberlin]

One of the interesting things in RPGs in the idea of risk versus reward. In some games, as we have evidence right in this thread, they opt to cut out the experience game from the typical fight. Some gives you the experience to level from sources like quests, others from boss-like encounters and still others from combinations of both or other sources. Then of course some games just axe experience and levels entirely.

 

As a low level character, I wonder if the idea that 'this trash enemy', for lack of a better term, yields them nothing is discouraging in some cases. Certainly they expended effort, and should be rewarded, so we reward them through means other than experience. Still, the idea that they aren't worth experience raises a question of 'challenge' . . . that being, 'if the enemy isn't challenging enough to warrant a granting of experience, then why are they there?'

 

Let's talk difficulty in general, and as ourselves, do you want 'trash' enemies that aren't on the level of bosses? Should not every encounter be a challenging situation begging tactical approaches? If the challenge is properly significant . . . then why no experience? If no experience, then what is the decider of what is worthy? If worthy than what if the point of those encounters not challenging enough to be considered unworthy? Are the encounters not to be taken on a singulars basis, but as a whole, part of the larger mission you encounter them upon, rather than on a case by case basis?

 

In the end, I don't really 'need' enemies to be experience pinatas. I do, however, need all enemies to be challenging enough to be worth my time, and not in that 'do lots of damage' or 'have tons of health' way, which I consider tediuum, no, I mean in terms of actual challenge. Smart enemies, good AI, complex attack patterns and tactical use of their numbers and abilities. Things like that. I enjoy, crave and absolutely require challenge. My worry is that enemies not worth experience will . . . not be a worthy challenge. If they are a worthy challenge, my worry is proper reward for the risk and effort involved. Obviously, as I said at the beginning of this paragraph, I don't need experience, so my issue isn't that experience be handed out as a reward. Rather, the real meat I'm getting at, is what reward will mean in the context of a system where some nemies do not grant experience.

 

I've played games that have done this. Some games have them full of loot. Some games have them hold abilities you can learn. Some games have them drop money. Some games have them drop what they're wearing. And so on, and so forth, on and on. I don't need experience as a reward for an effort, but I do like reward for an effort, and I'm not even talking about money or gear specifically. I'm not even sure the reward has to be from an individual encounter to be considered a reward for said encounter, as I mentioned a smaller encounter being a part of a larger experience/mission/quest/whatever.

 

Then you have questions, as in this thread, brought up in the sense of . . . what that larger aspect means. If not on a smaller, case by case basis, then how is the reward decided in the larger scheme? Is it static? Is it dynamic? If it changes, does it changed based on what you do/don't do? Does the reward vary based on the encounters along the way? If you avoided the encounters, using your skillset, does it mean you get less reward in the end? Or are you rewarded for properly using your kit. Are you rewarded differently depending on how you made your way through a quest? Is one path worth less than another? And so on . . . important questions, from a mechanics aspect anyways. Then you get into the idea of what those rewards consist of, and what sort of groupings exist from which rewards can possibly sprout (experience, money, weapons, armor, consumables, etc).

 

-

 

There are a lot of questions here . . . obviously I have no answers. I do eagerly await more information from Obsidian though.