Level scaling and its misuse

[Helm]

^

There is no pure benefit in combat or in sneaking, one mechanic is not better than the other. The only pure benefit is completing the quest, to favor one style of gameplay over another is degenerate gameplay (as Josh has said many times).

 

And why should there be a tradeoff? If you only sneak does that mean you will break the game and cannot fight anymore? Nope, pacifists wil not be punished, they will have similar (good) loot and will always be able to fight (when obligatory). Fighting does not make you stronger at all, only walking over an imaginary line does, which will allow pacifists to become great and powerful warriors.

 

So, why all the butthurt? All I did was tell you what Josh wrote and I even gave you some links in my last post. If you don't like what he said, well, then complain to him and not to me.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

I do like what he said. Your interpretation of what he said, though, is nonsense. (Not to mention whiny.)

[Helm]

I do like what he said. Your interpretation of what he said, though, is nonsense. (Not to mention whiny.)

Um, but that is what he said. Sorry, that you don't like it.

 

If you think otherwise then tell me what he really said. So start discussing and stop whining please.

[PrimeJunta]

I did start discussing, but you completely ignored what I was saying.

 

All JES has said is that the game won't reward grinding or degenerate tactics like the Valorian the Munchkin scenarios above; i.e., XP and loot for solving problems, regardless of how you solved them. It does not follow that pacifists are never at a disadvantage. Nor does it follow that pacifist solutions are the easiest, least resource-consuming, or most rewarding ones, or always available. I even described a couple of scenarios entirely compatible with JES's descriptions where (consistent) pacifists would be at a disadvantage.

 

What do I expect? A mix of stealth, diplomacy, and fighting. Sometimes fighting will be the most advantageous solution, sometimes stealth, sometimes diplomacy. Meaning that a character/party who favors stealth, or diplomacy, or fighting will sometimes be at an advantage, sometimes not.

 

Why do you feel the game should reward fighting more than stealth or diplomacy, if such paths are available?

[Valorian]

All JES has said is that the game won't reward grinding or degenerate tactics

 

The degeneration is only in your head. There is nothing "degenerate" about using stealth to get an item and later coming back to kill some lizards.

 

And you can't "grind", it's not a MMO, unless the devs are blessed with the utter intelligence perk and include endless random encounters and respawns.

[PrimeJunta]

How does awarding XP for quest objectives rather than victory in combat stop you from coming back to kill the lizards, if that's what you enjoy doing?

 

Why are respawns and endless random encounters a problem, if there's an in-game rationale for them, and if they don't break the game system (e.g. by permitting grinding?)

[Valorian]

How does awarding XP for quest objectives rather than victory in combat stop you from coming back to kill the lizards, if that's what you enjoy doing?

 

Concentrate. I quoted your post where you call it "degenerate tactics". Why is it degenerate tactics? Leave XP aside for now because it causes even greater confusion in your head.

 

No, it's not something I enjoy doing. If they were hostile I'd kill them, if they weren't and asked for mercy I'd spare them.

 

Why are respawns and endless random encounters a problem, if there's an in-game rationale for them, and if they don't break the game system (e.g. by permitting grinding?)

 

The problem is... infinite XP and gold (loot).

So instead of removing combat XP, remove endless respawns.

 

There probably would be an in-game rationale for going to the toilet very often, but it doesn't mean it's needed or beneficial to the overall experience.

[Helm]

I did start discussing, but you completely ignored what I was saying.

 

All JES has said is that the game won't reward grinding or degenerate tactics like the Valorian the Munchkin scenarios above; i.e., XP and loot for solving problems, regardless of how you solved them.

Yes, correct, he did, because he wants to give the player the freedom to choose how he wants to solve a quest. The only problem with this system is that he is punishing those who like combat by turning it into a pointless chore. You don't need to engage in combat for xp, you don't need to engage in combat for loot, you would only need to engage in combat to pass an obstacle. But not even that is necessary, because you can just sneak past many enemies. Why should I waste my time to kill enemies, if I can just sneak past?

 

This is rather strange concept for a game that is supposed to be the spiritual successor to the IE games, which based heavily upon combat that was not pointless.

It does not follow that pacifists are never at a disadvantage. Nor does it follow that pacifist solutions are the easiest, least resource-consuming, or most rewarding ones, or always available.

There is no disadvantage in avoiding combat (sneaking), otherwise combat would be pure benefit which would stand in contradiction to Josh's stance on "degenerate gaming".

 

And true, like I have written many times, you will not always be able to sneak or avoid combat, combat will be obligatory in certain situations.

Why do you feel the game should reward fighting more than stealth or diplomacy, if such paths are available?

That is not what I think. Stealth would be interesting, but not if it makes combat pointless (where it is not obligatory). Why should "Valorian the Munchkin" not be rewarded for his solution to solving the problem with lizard priests? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Josh can fix this problem and maybe he will do that too. He still has some time, lets see what happens.

[Helm]

Josh also says here that he also does not want to reward gamers with xp for killing. And how the **** is he planning on stopping me from "degeneratively" going back to kill for loot? Loot was also important in the IE games, the loot you found on creatures was probably more important than the xp you received from killing them. Loot is also a reward and it will stay that way unless you pull "a Bethesda" and implement a totally ****ed up economy where cash is worthless.

 

Why the heck does he even want to tell me what to do? If I want more xp or more loot then I will go back and kill those creatures and that should be my decision and not a decision the developer makes for me. I have to say though, that a situation like that is extremely unlikely. I personally never wasted my time to run through an entire dungeon again just to kill a few monsters that I might have missed just for loot and xp.

 

Why does Josh think xp is a reward and cash/loot is not a reward anyway? Oh thats right, there will probably be so much loot that you won't have to kill for any.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Helm

[Lephys]

In one part of the game, Trog'Dor the Burninator at a legendary adventurer who was carrying The Magical Axe of Rewardment. You cannot Stealth or Diplomacy the axe out from his gullet. You slay him with magnificent combat prowess, and are rewarded with The Magical Axe of Rewardment. Let's go ahead and say you also get XP, because it was an objective to slay him.

 

You go down the hallway, and you come upon a heavy, locked door that only a master Lockpicker Rogue can pick. If you happen to have a master Lockpicker Rogue, you unlock it, and inside is a small shrine with the Wondrous Sword of Rewardment. No combat was involved, but you get an awesome piece of loot because you focused on a non-combat skill enough. Let's say you also get XP because it was an objective to retrieve the lost sword for some faction.

 

Seems to me the people who suck too much to take out that dragon "miss out." So that dragon favors combat. Oh, but the treasure shrine seems to favor non-combat. Whoooaaaa, dilemma! Which does the game favor?!

 

Now please explain how the two above examples cannot co-exist in the same game. The key word being "explain," and not just create a hypothetical example of a game in which combat is never required, and then pretend that was the explanation I asked for.

 

Also...

 

There is no disadvantage in avoiding combat (sneaking), otherwise combat would be pure benefit which would stand in contradiction to Josh's stance on "degenerate gaming".

 

And true, like I have written many times, you will not always be able to sneak or avoid combat, combat will be obligatory in certain situations.

 

I'm fairly certain that it's impossible for both of these to be true:

 

"Combat will be obligatory in certain situations."

"There is no disadvantage in avoiding combat."

 

See also "Trog'dor the Burninator" example above.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Lephys

[Helm]

I never said that you could always avoid combat under every circumstance and I never said that you would also want to avoid an elite mob or boss (because they usually have good loot). As far as I know it will not be possible to always avoid combat anyway (like I have said).

 

But Josh said himself that pacifist choices will not be punished. So you might have different loot, you might get the same loot with a different solution, but you won't have bad loot.

[Lephys]

^ Exactly. So, in the event you can EITHER use combat OR non-combat to handle the same situation, you get a reward either way. In the event that you can only use combat to accomplish a certain goal, the "pacifists" are "punished" (terrible word choice, by the way) by failing to complete that goal in any way, shape, or fashion. Vice versa with locked chests and situations that require only non-combat skills.

 

So, since you admit that some (maybe even many, since we don't really know exactly how much) of the game will require combat, are you suggesting that combat-endorsers should get all the combat-exclusive benefits, PLUS extra XP and loot in the combat/non-combat hybrid scenarios? Or, if you want to look at it the other way, that the non-combat people should get not only NONE of the combat-required rewards, but also fewer/lesser rewards from the things they happen to accomplish without combat that could've been accomplished with combat?

 

No one's saying "You're stupid for wishing we got XP upon killing." That's a perfectly valid system. But that doesn't automatically mean that not-doing that is completely and utterly ridiculous. It's an abstraction. Hell, in the typical XP-for-kills system, you leveled up with that XP, then increased your lockpicking and herbalism and pot-cleaning skills. How does that make sense? You don't see people on here going "THAT'S BULLSHYTE! We should ALWAYS get more XP than they get when we brew some potions AND kill things!", and yet RPGs have pretty much been using that system for about 10 years now, if not longer.

 

I'm also not saying that imbalance isn't a valid concern. IF the game allowed all combat scenarios to be circumvented with a non-combat skill, then yes, combat would lose out. But, as long as it's balanced okay, there's nothing inherently unfair about the proposed system. At least that anyone's pointed out so far.

[PrimeJunta]

Concentrate. I quoted your post where you call it "degenerate tactics". Why is it degenerate tactics? Leave XP aside for now because it causes even greater confusion in your head.

 

Sorry, Val, but if you can't be arsed to read JES's concise and excellent explanation of what degenerate strategy means, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

The problem is... infinite XP and gold (loot).

So instead of removing combat XP, remove endless respawns.

 

Why is it a better solution to remove respawns than combat XP?

[PrimeJunta]

Yes, correct, he did, because he wants to give the player the freedom to choose how he wants to solve a quest. The only problem with this system is that he is punishing those who like combat by turning it into a pointless chore. You don't need to engage in combat for xp, you don't need to engage in combat for loot, you would only need to engage in combat to pass an obstacle. But not even that is necessary, because you can just sneak past many enemies. Why should I waste my time to kill enemies, if I can just sneak past?

 

What makes combat a pointless chore, but sneaking, diplomacy, or other problem-solving not a pointless chore?

[Valorian]

Concentrate. I quoted your post where you call it "degenerate tactics". Why is it degenerate tactics? Leave XP aside for now because it causes even greater confusion in your head.

 

Sorry, Val, but if you can't be arsed to read JES's concise and excellent explanation of what degenerate strategy means, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

I was, of course, referring to your example of "degenerate tactics". But you avoid to answer again, ok, let's move on.

 

Joshua's example doesn't involve degenerate tactics as a result of having combat XP. It involves degenerate design of letting the players get XP by subsequently killing quest givers when they clearly don't want that to happen 'coz they find it "degenerate". It has nothing to do with combat XP.

 

 

Why is it a better solution to remove respawns than combat XP?

 

Because having endless respawns adds nothing to the game, other than eventually annoyance.

 

They would constantly respawn.. what for, precisely? If they don't drop loot* or give xp? So that someone can kill them over and over again for no reason whatsoever?

 

*If they do drop loot then it's a source of endless gold. It's a lose-lose situation.

[Helm]

^ Exactly. So, in the event you can EITHER use combat OR non-combat to handle the same situation, you get a reward either way.

Well, that is exactly what I mean. You only engage in combat for a reward, which you get regardless of what you do making combat only a tedious chore. Why should I even engage in combat if a simple peaceful solution is just as good as violent one? Josh doesn't want to penalize the pacifist solution and in turn is making the combat in a combat based game absolutely pointless, so why even bother in engaging in senseless combat. Just choose the no-brainer solution and you're done.

In the event that you can only use combat to accomplish a certain goal, the "pacifists" are "punished" (terrible word choice, by the way) by failing to complete that goal in any way, shape, or fashion. Vice versa with locked chests and situations that require only non-combat skills.

Yup, you only engage in combat if the game forces you to do so, because otherwise it is almost always absolutely pointless. Doesn't make sense. Maybe Josh likes to hold our hands while we play, who knows.

So, since you admit that some (maybe even many, since we don't really know exactly how much) of the game will require combat, are you suggesting that combat-endorsers should get all the combat-exclusive benefits, PLUS extra XP and loot in the combat/non-combat hybrid scenarios?

No, I want to have the decision to do one or the other and not have the game make that decision for me. The better solution will always be a no brainer, unlike in the IE games (or even in Fallout) where you could actually choose. In PE I will already know the better solution and it won't be the pointless combat.

 

And it doesn't even have to be a choice where conflict resolution is required. What if I am wandering around and see some orcs? I won't bother to attack them, because it is pointless. I won't need the loot (I will have more than enough, because "loot is systemic") and you don't get xp for combat. And if they attack me I'll be like "Screw those raiding, pillaging, filthy, child killing super evil ****, combat is just a pointless chore and a waste of time. I'll just run away, buh bye evil orcs". Unless of course I get a quest reward for killing them. Oh yeah, "Kill 20 orcs for 500xp" sounds like a great quest and a lot of fun. And what if I only feel like killing 15 orcs, well to bad. Go back and kill some more even though you don't want to.

Or, if you want to look at it the other way, that the non-combat people should get not only NONE of the combat-required rewards, but also fewer/lesser rewards from the things they happen to accomplish without combat that could've been accomplished with combat?

Why should any choice I have to make always have the same outcome, just because Josh does not want to penalize a player for any choice that he makes? Why engage in combat? You get the same loot, same xp, same, same, same.

No one's saying "You're stupid for wishing we got XP upon killing." That's a perfectly valid system. But that doesn't automatically mean that not-doing that is completely and utterly ridiculous. It's an abstraction. Hell, in the typical XP-for-kills system, you leveled up with that XP, then increased your lockpicking and herbalism and pot-cleaning skills. How does that make sense? You don't see people on here going "THAT'S BULLSHYTE! We should ALWAYS get more XP than they get when we brew some potions AND kill things!"

And how does it make sense that sneaking past an imaginary line for quest xp makes you a powerful warrior and master potion brewer in PE?

 

If you wanna make an isometric Deus Ex game, then quest only xp is the way to go. But this is not an isometric Deus Ex. Quest xp makes sense for linear games, or for stealth games. Bloodlines is a good, but very linear. Deus Ex is a stealth game. Objective xp makes sense in these cases.

 

But that is not the point, they are just making combat pointless by making every choice, no matter what it is, have practically the same outcome. Combat will just be a waste of time (in a game, that is supposed to be combat oriented). The story might change, sure, but this is not an interactive book, it is an RPG.

and yet RPGs have pretty much been using that system for about 10 years now, if not longer.

Ohhh, thats a good one.

Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PROJECT ETERNITY.

 

Btw, combat xp is still used in games.

[PrimeJunta]

Joshua's example doesn't involve degenerate tactics as a result of having combat XP. It involves degenerate design of letting the players get XP by subsequently killing quest givers when they clearly don't want that to happen 'coz they find it "degenerate". It has nothing to do with combat XP.

 

Nope. Killing critters for XP (rather than to accomplish some in-game goal) is degenerate. Any in-game activity you do for metagame reasons is. And that is indeed one reason they've dropped combat XP. The main reason being that it makes the system easier to balance and more difficult to break.

 

Why is it a better solution to remove respawns than combat XP?

 

Because having endless respawns adds nothing to the game, other than eventually annoyance.

 

On the contrary. They can make, for example, travel an interesting gameplay element. If you're able to completely depopulate a wilderness, there's no more cost to traversing it. If there's always a possibility of a potentially dangerous random encounter, you need to take that into account when planning your moves. It adds depth to the gameplay. Sometimes a quite a lot of depth, even.

 

They would constantly respawn.. what for, precisely? If they don't drop loot* or give xp? So that someone can kill them over and over again for no reason whatsoever?

 

Nope. See above for an example. Another benefit is that it adds life and depth to the setting. If you kill a family of bears occupying a cave in the wilderness, it won't be too long before something else moves in. Replicating this in a game makes the world more believable. That is not an insignificant benefit IMO.

 

*If they do drop loot then it's a source of endless gold. It's a lose-lose situation.

 

That is quite true. I hope they address it somehow, e.g. by making junk loot drops unsalable, or so painful to sell that it really, really isn't worth the trouble.

[Helm]

Yes, correct, he did, because he wants to give the player the freedom to choose how he wants to solve a quest. The only problem with this system is that he is punishing those who like combat by turning it into a pointless chore. You don't need to engage in combat for xp, you don't need to engage in combat for loot, you would only need to engage in combat to pass an obstacle. But not even that is necessary, because you can just sneak past many enemies. Why should I waste my time to kill enemies, if I can just sneak past?

 

What makes combat a pointless chore, but sneaking, diplomacy, or other problem-solving not a pointless chore?

None of them are pointless chores, if rewarded appropriately. But combat will always be the worst choice, seeing that you always benefit more from sneaking or diplomacy, because it is the easiest (an therefore most logical) solution to reach the same goal.

[Helm]

Joshua's example doesn't involve degenerate tactics as a result of having combat XP. It involves degenerate design of letting the players get XP by subsequently killing quest givers when they clearly don't want that to happen 'coz they find it "degenerate". It has nothing to do with combat XP.

 

Nope. Killing critters for XP (rather than to accomplish some in-game goal) is degenerate. Any in-game activity you do for metagame reasons is. And that is indeed one reason they've dropped combat XP. The main reason being that it makes the system easier to balance and more difficult to break.

How can killing creatures and receiving xp be metagaming and receiving xp for quests not be metagaming?

Why is it a better solution to remove respawns than combat XP?

 

Because having endless respawns adds nothing to the game, other than eventually annoyance.

 

On the contrary. They can make, for example, travel an interesting gameplay element. If you're able to completely depopulate a wilderness, there's no more cost to traversing it. If there's always a possibility of a potentially dangerous random encounter, you need to take that into account when planning your moves. It adds depth to the gameplay. Sometimes a quite a lot of depth, even.

Certainly. Depopulate a whole dungeon and come back 2 minutes later to see that everything has respawned. Wow, sounds great. That really makes you feel like you changed the world...

 

If I wipe out a bandit camp, then that bandit camp is GONE. The only thing that will populate it again are chipmunks, bears and the flowers that grow on the dead bandits. I don't need the game to say to me: "haha, we're back even thought it makes no sense. So **** you looser."

 

They would constantly respawn.. what for, precisely? If they don't drop loot* or give xp? So that someone can kill them over and over again for no reason whatsoever?

 

Nope. See above for an example. Another benefit is that it adds life and depth to the setting. If you kill a family of bears occupying a cave in the wilderness, it won't be too long before something else moves in. Replicating this in a game makes the world more believable. That is not an insignificant benefit IMO.

Yeah. After you kill the bears a pack of wolves moves in the next day.

 

Respawns like that happened in the IE games too, but it took weeks and the critters had such a low level that the xp was worthless by that time.

*If they do drop loot then it's a source of endless gold. It's a lose-lose situation.

That is quite true. I hope they address it somehow, e.g. by making junk loot drops unsalable, or so painful to sell that it really, really isn't worth the trouble.

Yup. No endless xp and no endless loot.

[PrimeJunta]

How can killing creatures and receiving xp be metagaming and receiving xp for quests not be metagaming?

 

The same way playing a racing game to win a race is not metagaming. Completing quests is to a cRPG what winning a race is to a racing game.

 

Certainly. Depopulate a whole dungeon and come back 2 minutes later to see that everything has respawned. Wow, sounds great. That really makes you feel like you changed the world...

 

That would be a really stupid way of going about it, and not what I suggested at all. I was suggesting that if you return to the dungeon the next day, you might find some scavengers gnawing on the bones you left behind. Return to it in a month, and maybe a tribe of kobolds moved in. And so on. It would be silly if the exact same monsters respawned every time, except in a wilderness setting where they would represent beasties wandering in from neighboring areas. It would not be believable to have one band of murder hobos be able to entirely depopulate a huge wilderness area.

 

If I wipe out a bandit camp, then that bandit camp is GONE. The only thing that will populate it again are chipmunks, bears and the flowers that grow on the dead bandits. I don't need the game to say to me: "haha, we're back even thought it makes no sense. So **** you looser."

 

In your world, if the police arrests and jails a criminal biker gang, does no other criminal gang ever take over its business?

 

Yup. No endless xp and no endless loot.

 

Exactly!

 

 

What makes combat a pointless chore, but sneaking, diplomacy, or other problem-solving not a pointless chore?

None of them are pointless chores, if rewarded appropriately. But combat will always be the worst choice, seeing that you always benefit more from sneaking or diplomacy, because it is the easiest (an therefore most logical) solution to reach the same goal.

 

Why do you believe sneaking or diplomacy are always easier and provide more benefit than combat?

[Helm]

The same way playing a racing game to win a race is not metagaming. Completing quests is to a cRPG what winning a race is to a racing game.

That is not metagaming. Metagaming, roughly said, is if I know something that my in game character can't know and I use this to my advantage. i.e. I use a strategy guide.

Certainly. Depopulate a whole dungeon and come back 2 minutes later to see that everything has respawned. Wow, sounds great. That really makes you feel like you changed the world...

That would be a really stupid way of going about it, and not what I suggested at all. I was suggesting that if you return to the dungeon the next day, you might find some scavengers gnawing on the bones you left behind. Return to it in a month, and maybe a tribe of kobolds moved in. And so on. It would be silly if the exact same monsters respawned every time, except in a wilderness setting where they would represent beasties wandering in from neighboring areas. It would not be believable to have one band of murder hobos be able to entirely depopulate a huge wilderness area.

Well, that is ok. But then again it isn't respawning and the IE games used a similar system.

If I wipe out a bandit camp, then that bandit camp is GONE. The only thing that will populate it again are chipmunks, bears and the flowers that grow on the dead bandits. I don't need the game to say to me: "haha, we're back even thought it makes no sense. So **** you looser."

In your world, if the police arrests and jails a criminal biker gang, does no other criminal gang ever take over its business?

I dunno. Maybe the evil bandits spilled mutagen which sept into the soil and the chipmunks in my scenario mutated after they ate the spoiled acorns. Then their DNA mixed with that of the bandits. This turned them into super evil chipmunks of destruction, who rebuild the camp and then start their plan of world conquest.

 

But, that would not respawning. Which is a good thing.

Yup. No endless xp and no endless loot.

Exactly!

Phew, we can finally agree on something!

What makes combat a pointless chore, but sneaking, diplomacy, or other problem-solving not a pointless chore?

None of them are pointless chores, if rewarded appropriately. But combat will always be the worst choice, seeing that you always benefit more from sneaking or diplomacy, because it is the easiest (an therefore most logical) solution to reach the same goal.

Why do you believe sneaking or diplomacy are always easier and provide more benefit than combat?

Diplomacy will (should) have many shades of gray (Avellone is working on this game after all!). Diplomacy is always good, so I guess we can leave that out.

 

I just don't see why I should engage in combat, if there is no reward. Well, you could say: To make yourself feel better because you are roleplaying. Well **** that, I like to develop my character to be a fighting machine of goodness, that smites out evil orcs and nasty wizard liches. It is not just about story, it is about story and character development and my character will never engage in pointless combat, because the game is not rewarding me for combat, it is ONLY rewarding me for crossing an imaginary line however I feel like doing it. That's bull****.

 

What if I am wandering around and see some orcs? I won't bother to attack them, because it is pointless. I won't need the loot (I will have more than enough, because "loot is systemic") and you don't get xp for combat. And if they attack me I'll be like "Screw those raiding, pillaging, filthy, child killing super evil ****, combat is just a pointless chore and a waste of time and resources. I'll just run away, so, buh bye evil orcs. Go **** yourselves and play with those who only love quest xp".

Unless of course I get a quest reward for killing them. Oh yeah, "Kill 20 orcs for 500xp" sounds like a great quest and a lot of fun. And what if I only feel like killing 15 orcs? well too bad. Go back and kill some more even though you don't want to so you can get some more xp. That's bull****.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

The same way playing a racing game to win a race is not metagaming. Completing quests is to a cRPG what winning a race is to a racing game.

That is not metagaming. Metagaming, roughly said, is if I know something that my in game character can't know and I use this to my advantage. i.e. I use a strategy guide.

 

Nope. Metagaming is any in-game action you take for out-of-game reasons. Racing to win in a racing game is not metagaming, because winning a race is an in-game objective. Attempting to complete a quest in a cRPG is not metagaming because it is an in-game objective. Going back to kill monsters for XP is degenerate/metagaming, because you are not doing it for any in-game reason.

 

But, that would not respawning. Which is a good thing.

 

Translation: if a mechanic you don't like is used in a way you like, you redefine it as no longer the mechanic you don't like. Thanks for making that clear; I'll try to account for it in future exchanges with you.

 

Diplomacy will (should) have many shades of gray (Avellone is working on this game after all!). Diplomacy is always good, so I guess we can leave that out.

 

Why do you believe diplomacy is always good?

 

I just don't see why I should engage in combat, if there is no reward. Well, you could say: To make yourself feel better because you are roleplaying.

 

It sounds like you don't like cRPG combat much at all, then. If that's the case, then

 

(a) Why do you want to play a combat-heavy cRPG to start with, and

(b) Why aren't you overjoyed that you can avoid all that boring, tedious chore of combat by engaging in stealth, diplomacy, or other approaches instead?

 

Well **** that, I like to develop my character to be a fighting machine of goodness, that smites out evil orcs and nasty wizard liches. It is not just about story, it is about story and character development and my character will never engage in pointless combat, because the game is not rewarding me for combat, it is ONLY rewarding me for crossing an imaginary line however I feel like doing it. That's bull****.

 

I've lost you again. Weren't you just arguing against role-playing (LARPing)? Now you're saying that you want to role-play a mean hm-hm-man-of-goodness but won't unless said mean hm-hm-man-of-goodness gets rewarded by some juicy XP every time he smites a bad guy? Which is it? You can't really have it both ways.

 

What if I am wandering around and see some orcs? I won't bother to attack them, because it is pointless. I won't need the loot (I will have more than enough, because "loot is systemic") and you don't get xp for combat. And if they attack me I'll be like "Screw those raiding, pillaging, filthy, child killing super evil ****, combat is just a pointless chore and a waste of time and resources. I'll just run away, so, buh bye evil orcs. Go **** yourselves and play with those who only love quest xp".

 

And this is a problem, because...?

 

Unless of course I get a quest reward for killing them. Oh yeah, "Kill 20 orcs for 500xp" sounds like a great quest and a lot of fun. And what if I only feel like killing 15 orcs? well too bad. Go back and kill some more even though you don't want to so you can get some more xp. That's bull****.

 

Yeah, I detest those kinds of quests. Almost as bad as "bring me 20 wolf pelts" or "carry this Very Important Package to the Derpwood post office."

 

OTOH, "Clear out the orc encampent in Derpwood to stop them from raiding the homesteads" would be a meaningful quest.

[Helm]

The same way playing a racing game to win a race is not metagaming. Completing quests is to a cRPG what winning a race is to a racing game.

That is not metagaming. Metagaming, roughly said, is if I know something that my in game character can't know and I use this to my advantage. i.e. I use a strategy guide.

Nope. Metagaming is any in-game action you take for out-of-game reasons. Racing to win in a racing game is not metagaming, because winning a race is an in-game objective. Attempting to complete a quest in a cRPG is not metagaming because it is an in-game objective. Going back to kill monsters for XP is degenerate/metagaming, because you are not doing it for any in-game reason.

This is metagaming. Even Josh uses the term metagaming like I described it, seeing that you like everything he says, maybe you will believe me now.... or maybe you will never get it.

But, that would not respawning. Which is a good thing.

Translation: if a mechanic you don't like is used in a way you like, you redefine it as no longer the mechanic you don't like. Thanks for making that clear; I'll try to account for it in future exchanges with you.

How many times do I have to explain it to you until you understand what I am saying? If it is done like in the IE games, i.e where a few creatures spawn weeks later, but not anywhere at the same amount and without elites, then that and only that IS OK. The xp would be worthless anyway (you know how an xp system works, right?)

 

Jeez.

Diplomacy will (should) have many shades of gray (Avellone is working on this game after all!). Diplomacy is always good, so I guess we can leave that out.

 

Why do you believe diplomacy is always good?

I was obviously talking about the mechanic and not always choosing the diplomatic resolution to a conflict.

 

I just don't see why I should engage in combat, if there is no reward. Well, you could say: To make yourself feel better because you are roleplaying.

 

It sounds like you don't like cRPG combat much at all, then. If that's the case, then

 

(a) Why do you want to play a combat-heavy cRPG to start with, and

(b) Why aren't you overjoyed that you can avoid all that boring, tedious chore of combat by engaging in stealth, diplomacy, or other approaches instead?

Why do you think the system used in the IE games (the spiritual predecessors to this game) is a bunch of bull**** and needs to be fixed? I dunno, doesn't seem to makes sense to say that the system used in the greatest RPGs ever created is utter crap.

 

I've lost you again. Weren't you just arguing against role-playing (LARPing)? Now you're saying that you want to role-play a mean hm-hm-man-of-goodness but won't unless said mean hm-hm-man-of-goodness gets rewarded by some juicy XP every time he smites a bad guy? Which is it? You can't really have it both ways.

As Valorian has told you many times, you seem to have problem understanding written text for some reason. I'm not going to explain it slowly to you either.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

What if I am wandering around and see some orcs? I won't bother to attack them, because it is pointless. I won't need the loot (I will have more than enough, because "loot is systemic") and you don't get xp for combat. And if they attack me I'll be like "Screw those raiding, pillaging, filthy, child killing super evil ****, combat is just a pointless chore and a waste of time and resources. I'll just run away, so, buh bye evil orcs. Go **** yourselves and play with those who only love quest xp".

 

And this is a problem, because...?

And it's a ****ing fantaaaaastic mechanic, to just want to avoid every single combat situation in combat based game, because....?

 

Unless of course I get a quest reward for killing them. Oh yeah, "Kill 20 orcs for 500xp" sounds like a great quest and a lot of fun. And what if I only feel like killing 15 orcs? well too bad. Go back and kill some more even though you don't want to so you can get some more xp. That's bull****.

OTOH, "Clear out the orc encampent in Derpwood to stop them from raiding the homesteads" would be a meaningful quest.

You forgot about the pacifist solution. Sneaking is just as important in a combat based game you know.... lol

Edited January 14, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

How many times do I have to explain it to you until you understand what I am saying?

 

I don't know, but it hasn't worked so far. Either you're not very good at explaining, or I'm not very good at understanding. Either way, communication is not happening.

 

If it is done like in the IE games, i.e where a few creatures spawn weeks later, but not anywhere at the same amount and without elites, then that and only that IS OK. The xp would be worthless anyway (you know how an xp system works, right?)

 

Jeez.

 

I agree. It's still respawning, though.

 

Why do you believe diplomacy is always good?

I was obviously talking about the mechanic and not always choosing the diplomatic resolution to a conflict.

 

Yes, I understand that. Why do you think diplomacy, as a mechanic, is always good?

 

Why do you think the system used in the IE games (the spiritual predecessors to this game) is a bunch of bull**** and needs to be fixed?

 

Because it was exploitable and easy to break, and encouraged metagaming and degenerate strategies. Not saying it was a bunch of bullcacky, mind; just that it has lots and lots of room for improvement. As game systems go, AD&D is pretty god-awful to start with, 3.0 and 3.5 are much better especially for PnP but still a long way from as good as they might be.

 

I've noted, by the way, that you didn't answer my question, but instead deflected it and asked me one. I'll repeat it in case you change your mind and decide to address it after all:

 

It sounds like you don't like cRPG combat much at all, then. If that's the case, then

 

(a) Why do you want to play a combat-heavy cRPG to start with, and

(b) Why aren't you overjoyed that you can avoid all that boring, tedious chore of combat by engaging in stealth, diplomacy, or other approaches instead?

 

Still waiting...

 

I dunno, doesn't seem to makes sense to say that the system used in the greatest RPGs ever created is utter crap.

 

Hey, there's another thing we agree about. (Although I would add "some of" before "the greatest.")

 

I've lost you again. Weren't you just arguing against role-playing (LARPing)? Now you're saying that you want to role-play a mean hm-hm-man-of-goodness but won't unless said mean hm-hm-man-of-goodness gets rewarded by some juicy XP every time he smites a bad guy? Which is it? You can't really have it both ways.

As Valorian has told you many times, you seem to have problem understanding written text for some reason. I'm not going to explain it slowly to you either.

 

Not answering the question again, instead attempting to deflect it with ad-hominem. Duly noted. You're not defending your position very well.

 

Let me restate my question. You appear to be stating the following propositions:

 

(1) You want to role-play a mean hm-hm-man-of-goodness who smites evil wherever he finds it

(2) You won't do it unless you get a cookie from the game every time you do it

(3) You disdain LARPing (i.e., fighting those orcs b/c your character hates them and think they should be exterminated).

 

From where I'm at, there's a contradiction there. If not, please explain how I've misunderstood your position.

 

The impression I've gotten from your (rather confused) postings about your gaming preferences and position is something like:

 

(1) You want to play a combat-oriented character.

(2) You feel that combat is such a tedious chore that you only want to engage in it if the game rewards you with XP specifically for choosing combat rather than a non-combat solution, if available.

(3) You hate this.

 

From where I'm at, there's another contradiction there. If you hate combat, logically you should be pleased that there are ways to avoid it without losing out on anything (much). If you like combat, logically you should be pleased that there are ways to do lots of it without losing out on anything (much).

 

Help me out here, man. What am I missing?