Degenerate Gameplay

[TheMufflon]

Now the real question.  Which is the best path?

 

Simple. The optimal path is a combination of the Combat Path, the Stealth Path, and the Diplomatic path. E.g., first you sneak in and rob the secret room, then you sneak back out and approach them diplomatically, and once you've taken over the cult you kill everyone.

 

This yields the following rewards: 30,000 quest completion XP, 15,000 XP for killing the cult leader, 12,500 XP for finding the treasure room, 10,000 XP for tricking the cult, all the loot in the entire complex, all the cult leaders items, and your choice of quest reward item. It is by far the most profitable solution.

 

This is why rewarding XP based on using tools, rather than achieving goals, is a bad idea: it encourages the player to use more tools than is necessary to complete a task, resulting in redundancy.

Edited February 4, 2013 by TheMufflon

[Ave]

Party based game, spiritual successor of the IE games, and no kill xp? 

Single player could get away with stealth only, but how would you smuggle a whole team through everywhere?

This doesn't mean, stealth couldn't have a more pronounced use than the IE games. 

[Razsius]

@Prime

 

@Raszius: it's about the why of those numbers. There are games where the numbers going up are thegame, more or less. Roguelikes, MMO's, the Diablo series, arguably some of the more dungeon-crawly of the IE series (the IWD's, ToEE).

 

The only games where I really notice the numbers are the grindy ones like the Diablos and certain MMOs and stuff.  Coincidentally, these are also the "rpgs" I tend to least like to play.

 

 

Then there are games where the numbers are a means to an end. There are numbers and they go up, for sure, and as they go up, you get
stronger. But that's not all they're about. The numbers interact with the rest of the game to determine your place in an imagined world, and the imprint you leave on it. I'd put Fallout, PS:T, BG2, MotB, the KOTOR's, and VtM:B in this category. They're games that are about something, and the system is just a way to hold whatever they're about. In general, I prefer that kind of game.

 

So the way I read Ffordeson's intent, and the way I feel about this stuff, is that I prefer games where the system -- the numbers that go up -- are of instrumental value only. They're the vessel that holds the wine. A crystal goblet won't make rotgut any more palatable, and a fine wine will be good even drunk from a cracked clay mug.

 

This analogy would hold true if the "placed xp" didn't directly interfere with the taste of the "wine."  VtM:B slapped me in the face HARD multiple times when I chose "combat option."  The "wine" didn't taste very good at all in fact it tasted more like a poison because even people firmly in the camp of placed xp realized that the scenario I had given them equated to a meaningless choice by me.  I wouldn't exactly call that a success of an xp system.  There was NEVER a point in time where I thought the combat option was equally viable to a stealth path.  Never.  Stealth was pretty much always easier.

 

 

This is also why I think the most important feature of the game system is that it makes the lives of the vintners as easy as possible; lets them pour in the kind of wine they want to make. That's the main reason (although there are others) I'm firmly in the "placed XP" camp: it's way easier to tune than any form of "systemic XP" and so makes it easier for them to make us a better wine.

 

You can tell me that after you answer the question above.  Which path is "best" in the above scenario?  If it's hard to figure out that means there's actual choice involved not the non-choice of Josh's example or the non-existent options of VtM:B.

 

 

 

Now the real question.  Which is the best path?

 

Simple. The optimal path is a combination of the Combat Path, the Stealth Path, and the Diplomatic path. E.g., first you sneak in and rob the secret room, then you sneak back out and approach them diplomatically, and once you've taken over the cult you kill everyone.

 

This yields the following rewards: 30,000 quest completion XP, 15,000 XP for killing the cult leader, 12,500 XP for finding the treasure room, 10,000 XP for tricking the cult, all the loot in the entire complex, all the cult leaders items, and your choice of quest reward item. It is by far the most profitable solution.

 

This is why rewarding XP based on using tools, rather than achieving goals, is a bad idea: it encourages the player to use more tools than is necessary to complete a task, resulting in redundancy.

 

Apparently I didn't make this clear enough but each of those paths are exclusive to completing the quest.  There is no "all 3" option.  If you do the stealth path first and come back all you'll find are dead bodies and an empty cave.  You have, after all, just stolen the only artifact of their god they possessed.  The cult leader would've likely lost complete control of his cult and the members would have lost morale and will.  You would come back to nothing which is why the quest was completed in the first place.  The quest for those who can't figure it out is "Remove the cult that is menacing our town/city."  If you try the diplomatic option they have again left their cave as you told them to.  They now follow you their "god."  The artifact is "yours."  If you for some stupid reason try to betray one of the few advantages you have gained by using the Evil Path you will gain zip for kill xp (because they are now friendly to you) and paltry loot off the collective members corpses.  That is of course assuming you do not get horribly overwhelmed by near endless spawning hordes of them if you initiate on them wrong.

 

You have failed this test quite handily.

[TheMufflon]

Apparently I didn't make this clear enough but each of those paths are exclusive to completing the quest.

 

But you had to resort to post-hoc contrivances to make them exclusive: an "Everyone Dies" deus ex machina* and non-diegetic effects of a switch between the arbitrary states "hostile" and "friendly". Implementing it for just this quest is clunky, implementing it for every quest is impracticable. 

 

The fact remains that as long as you reward XP for killing, the optimal SOP will always end with "... and then kill everyone".

 

 

The quest for those who can't figure it out is "Remove the cult that is menacing our town/city."

 

Yes, but with the introduction of XP using tools, what the quest is about and what the player wants is no longer the same thing. The player wants to use as many tools as possible to complete the quest, this leads to redundancy. The fact that you don't have to kill everyone to complete the quest doesn't matter, because killing everyone is a now a goal unto itself. The same goes for stealth and diplomacy.

 

*Which could easily be avoided by simply leaving the Eye/putting the Eye back again the first time, since you will get it when you trick them anyway.

[TRX850]

Quest-only XP still seems to only serve a rational, compliant playstyle, and penalize chaotic and/or evil choices. Which all comes back to whether the player (i.e. YOU) can control yourself by having your characters behave relevant to their "alignment". A paladin would accept the quests, do the quests, and receive quest XP. A blackguard on the other hand, would lie, cheat, and possibly betray quest-givers to increase their power, which means they would not play to the rational, compliant model.

 

Kill XP allows players the freedom to play "against the system" if that's how their character would (and should) behave.  I'm still convinced we all want the same awesome game experience, but I'm not convinced quest-only XP will cover all playstyles.

[Razsius]

But you had to resort to post-hoc contrivances to make them exclusive: an "Everyone Dies" deus ex machina* and non-diegetic effects of a switch between the arbitrary states "hostile" and "friendly".

 

Do you even know what post hoc means?  Just randomly throwing out "logical grievances" doesn't make them actually true you know.  If the original goal of the quest was "get these guys to leave" it would stand to reason that completion of said objective would result in them oh I don't know actually leaving or dieing (which is just leaving in another sense).  I hate people that try to grasp at straws.

 

 

Implementing it for just this quest is clunky, implementing it for every quest is impracticable.

 

Design games in your spare time do you Mr. Munchkin?  You're ever so talented.  Funny, I could've sworn Josh said that toggling xp options was easy say like a page or so back?  Oh look there it is!

 

 

I want to say something about my high-level approach to design, whether the systems being described are dialogue, rest mechanics, or how you gain experience: the bottom line for any mechanic is how it affects the ways in which players play the game. I.e., after all of the theorizing, all of the speculation, and all of the strong statements of feeling on a mechanic, what matters is how people play the game.

 

So when I write that what Tim and I want to do is use quest/objective/challenge XP as the primary (if not only) methods of achieving XP, that means "want" will give way to "reality" if they are in conflict -- conflict in practice, not conflict in a forum discussion. When changing the system requires relatively little effort, there's not a ton of benefit to being absolutist over a year in advance. Moving from a class-based to classless system -- that's a big deal. That's

something you decide and pretty much stick with. Deciding whether to give XP for monsters or not give XP for monsters -- that's not a big deal. That's easy to address, even late in development. Deciding whether people can rest at certain locations or they can rest anywhere is also pretty easy to address.

 

These things exist on a sliding scale of difficulty, implementation/adjustment-wise. We plan things so we can make the simple changes easily later on. Generally that means creating simple base layers of mechanics and adding in "adjustment" or tuning mechanics when the metrics/gameplay we see demands it.

 

Funny that.

 

 

The fact remains that as long as you reward XP for killing, the optimal SOP will always end with "... and then kill everyone".

 

That's only a viable option if game designers allow it to be a viable option not because you say so.

 

 

Yes, but with the introduction of XP using tools, what the quest is about and what the player wants is no longer the same thing. The player wants to use as many tools as possible to complete the quest, this leads to redundancy. The fact that you don't have to kill everyone to complete the quest doesn't matter, because killing everyone is a now a goal unto itself. The same goes for stealth and diplomacy.

 

A giant load of hogwash if I ever saw it and even if it is true then maybe it's high time we beat it out of the players.  Munchkins will stop being munchkins if they get burned enough times.  My version of progress allows a "Hammer Session" variant of therapy.

 

 

*Which could easily be avoided by simply leaving the Eye/putting the Eye back again the first time, since you will get it when you trick them anyway.

 

I don't think you quite understand that if I was designing a game i'd be a munchkins worst nightmare.  If you put the Eye back or leave it or whatever you'd still have a very pissed off cult when you came back.  Good luck doing any of the following now 1) Staying alive 2) Getting an audience with their leader and 3) Completing the quest.  You probably assumed they'd reset but instead you'd have jack all for options.

 

You still fail the test i'm afraid.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Razsius

[Lephys]

Firstly, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to present such a detailed example. It's quite lovely. I am, though, curious as to the purpose of the "Quest completion" xp, since you seem to be awarding XP for the actual route taken/outcome achieved in each scenario, then tacking on an additional amount of "completion" XP that changes with each method of completion (even though the method awards are already separate and already change between them.)

 

 

If you for some stupid reason try to betray one of the few advantages you have gained by using the Evil Path you will gain zip for kill xp (because they are now friendly to you) and paltry loot off the collective members corpses.  That is of course assuming you do not get horribly overwhelmed by near endless spawning hordes of them if you initiate on them wrong.

 

This sparks the question: What's the difference between "You always get kill XP, except for sometimes when it obviously wouldn't be appropriate (like when a group of people worships you and you simply slaughter them all for no reason, even after they were no longer a threat)", and "You only get XP when we, the designers, deem the elimination of things an objective, and some bouts of slaying will not be objectives."?

 

The fact that VtM:B slapped you in the face so hard has nothing to do with not awarding XP for every single kill. It has to do with bad design decisions within the system they were using.

 

If I create a game that uses per-kill-XP awardment, rather than objective-based XP awardment, and I only put 3 combat scenarios in the entire game, while there are 9,000 non-combat scenarios in the game, is it the system's fault that you got screwed? Did how I chose to decide to award XP fail you? No... my terrible decision after the fact is what failed you.

 

You should get credit for what you accomplish, not what you do (unless the system ALWAYS awards you for whatever you do, a la Elder Scrolls). And sometimes, the exclusive combat option is going to be tougher/more involved than the non-combat option, and you should probably get more XP for that. And sometimes, the exclusive non-combat option is going to be tougher/more involved than the straight-up combat option, in which case you should get more XP for THAT.

 

Any options that AREN'T mutually exclusive should be viewed as individual, optional things (You can either kill these things or not, and you can either sneak past this or not, etc.), and don't warrant a potential problem, because they aren't related. That being said, killing something and sneaking past it should only be mutually exclusive options when they both effect a solution to the same problem.

 

Avoiding combat is not a sneak objective. Sneaking to some end that is different from simply killing everyone should prevent you from gaining any XP from going back and killing everything (if the game even lets you), as, if you kill everything in sight, then you were obviously detected by all those things and therefore didn't sneak past them. Again, if being detected means you can't accomplish something that you COULD'VE accomplished (cutting off some courier, or stealing a map before it's destroyed, etc.) before you were detected (via stealth), then that's once again in the realm of "optional stealthy things to do."

 

One of the main problems in this entire topic (across multiple threads) is that people keep bringing up examples that don't even warrant a "this-vs-this" dilemma to begin with, or saying things like "YOU MEAN NOTHING I EVER FIGHT OR KILL WILL EVER ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING FOR MY PROGRESSION?!"

 

There's a VAST ocean of possibility between "sometimes, you'll have to do more than simply reduce health bars to zero to gain XP," and "Gaining XP or accomplishing things will NEVER involve reducing health bars to zero in OUR game, MUAHAHAHAHAHA!"

 

Last time I checked, assuming the worst case scenario and ignoring the potential best-case scenario was pretty much the definition of "over-reaction."

Quest-only XP still seems to only serve a rational, compliant playstyle, and penalize chaotic and/or evil choices.

I dare say that's because you're inadvertently imagining ONLY scenarios which do exactly as you say. Do this: Think up one of those scenarios, and try to figure out how to use objective-based XP structuring fit the scenario without screwing anyone over. I bet you can do it.

 

It's not so much that it allows players to "go against the system." It's just a terrible system when your game isn't SOLELY about killing things (Like Diablo.) In that game, you could technically just run through most of the levels only killing about 5 out of 1,000 things (just the key ones). But, of course, you'd be horrendously under-powered. But, the ENTIRE XP system relies upon kill XP, pretty much.

 

P:E is not designed that way. It will have a lot of mandatory combat, sure. But it's structured into an actual story, not "here's a level filled with baddies. Clear it out. By the time you get to the end of the level, you should also have killed enough things to level up appropriately."

 

You've said it yourself: Reputation (amongst other things) can exact a LOT of changes and outcomes, and killing folk at "random" and poisoning the well (and oodles of other options) can allow you to gain a ferocious reputation, which can present even MORE combat (that's part of objectives for "evil" bastards only, even. And what do objectives do? Grant you XP. Voila.

 

There's simply nothing PREVENTING the system from accomodating all playstyles. Whereas, in the "always kill all things for more XP than whatever you would've gotten" system, you're ALWAYS missing out if you're not a rabid slaying machine, OR you bump down the XP rewards on all kills so much (so that mass-slayers aren't 73 levels ahead of the people who only do the 70% of the combat in the game that's an integral part of the story) that the XP gained hardly matters anymore and people are STILL upset.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Lephys

[TheMufflon]

Quest-only XP still seems to only serve a rational, compliant playstyle, and penalize chaotic and/or evil choices. Which all comes back to whether the player (i.e. YOU) can control yourself by having your characters behave relevant to their "alignment". A paladin would accept the quests, do the quests, and receive quest XP. A blackguard on the other hand, would lie, cheat, and possibly betray quest-givers to increase their power, which means they would not play to the rational, compliant model.

 

But the "quest-giver" (and I hope my inverted commas convey all the loathing I feel for that term and the mechanised gameplay that comes with it) isn't the one bestowing the XP reward, so there is no reason that lying, cheating, and betraying the "quest-giver" can't also be a quest.

 

Generally I hope P:E stays away from the usual trite quest formula of "person A asks you to go to location B and kill/retrieve/talk to someone/something and when you come back he gives you some cash". Quests shouldn't be an end unto themselves, but rather be an abstract framework for the story.

[Lephys]

But the "quest-giver" (and I hope my inverted commas convey all the loathing I feel for that term and the mechanised gameplay that comes with it) isn't the one bestowing the XP reward, so there is no reason that lying, cheating, and betraying the "quest-giver" can't also be a quest.

 

Generally I hope P:E stays away from the usual trite quest formula of "person A asks you to go to location B and kill/retrieve/talk to someone/something and when you come back he gives you some cash". Quests shouldn't be an end unto themselves, but rather be an abstract framework for the story.

This! Methinks at least 99.9% of the problems that people have with the proposed XP system stem from the false assumption regarding what an objective can or cannot be.

[TRX850]

But the "quest-giver" (and I hope my inverted commas convey all the loathing I feel for that term and the mechanised gameplay that comes with it) isn't the one bestowing the XP reward, so there is no reason that lying, cheating, and betraying the "quest-giver" can't also be a quest.

 

It depends how the chaotic/evil quest is initiated. You wouldn't know you were on that quest until your actions decided it for you.  Even if you accepted a quest, completed it, then returned to the quest-giver and killed him and all his goons in cold blood, you should still be awarded the kill XP but allow the faction/reputation system to handle the knock-on effect.

 

This returns control to the player and allows them to roleplay their character's agenda appropriately.

[Razsius]

@Lephys

 

 

Firstly, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to present such a detailed example. It's quite lovely. I am, though, curious as to the purpose of the "Quest completion" xp, since you seem to be awarding XP for the actual route taken/outcome achieved in each scenario, then tacking on an additional amount of "completion" XP that changes with each method of completion (even though the method awards are already separate and already change between them.)

 

You mean why are the quest xp rewards different or why award for mini objective completions?  Largely it was all for "balancing" each of the paths.  The combat path might give the best xp but maybe players view it as giving the least rewards.  It could feel balanced to the player however because of this.  Largely, I just tried to make it as complex as possible so at some point you'd think "well this feels like the most fun path to take" and then you'd make your choice based on that rather than anything else (note: unless you're a retarded munchkin who's about to get him/herself in trouble).

 

 

This sparks the question: What's the difference between "You always get kill XP, except for sometimes when it obviously wouldn't be appropriate (like when a group of people worships you and you simply slaughter them all for no reason, even after they were no longer a threat)", and "You only get XP when we, the designers, deem the elimination of things an objective, and some bouts of slaying will not be objectives."?

 

It's funny that you ask that because it kind of illustrates the problem.  The difference is in the objective xp based system your "choices" are tied to designer objectives meaning they are setting up the choices for you.  If it is outside of their designer then it essentially no longer becomes a choice to you the player you can make it a choice but the game will not reflect that.  Essentially you might find yourself doing something completely meaningless which is exactly what happened in VtM: B and their objective xp based system.  Mind you it's a very linear game.  Hypothetically, PE should be non-linear in at least some sense.  The more non-linear the game the more likely this situation can occur because players might find themselves "outside the design" if you will.  This is firmly illustrated in that I had to go out of my way to make an "evil path" for players that might feel like saying "screw you" to the quest giver.  I even had to go out of my way to find a "turn in" point for the evil path because going back to the original quest giver clearly would've been a problem.  Things were arbitrarily difficult in the one example I gave.  Now do what I had to do for an entire game.

 

 

Last time I checked, assuming the worst case scenario and ignoring the potential best-case scenario was pretty much the definition of "over-reaction."

 

I'm trying to create a best case scenario and it's pretty rare that I completely overreact.  Trying to create an objective based system that doesn't slap your wrist for taking the "wrong" path is anything but easy and i'd say it's near impossible if you have a parity of xp for each path.  There is no parity of choice so I really don't know the point of trying to make one.  You keep saying "yea it will work" in which case this cynic will simply ask you "yea how?"

 

 

There's simply nothing PREVENTING the system from accomodating all playstyles. Whereas, in the "always kill all things for more XP than whatever you would've gotten" system, you're ALWAYS missing out if you're not a rabid slaying machine, OR you bump down the XP rewards on all kills so much (so that mass-slayers aren't 73 levels ahead of the people who only do the 70% of the combat in the game that's an integral part of the story) that the XP gained hardly matters anymore and people are STILL upset.

 

People really need to reign in the absolutes.  You might say all this Lephys but have yet to prove how all this will actually work.. especially considering how non-linear the game should be.  What if I want to go hunt basilisks?  They going to give me nothing?  Are we going to replace "xp problem" with "loot problem"?  Or maybe I need an npc to tell me to go kill them?  Talk about a training wheels scenario.  Let's hold the player's hand all throughout the game.

[Lephys]

EDIT: @TRX (this was unclear to whom I was replying, since I missed Razsius's reply... sorry about that)

 

^ That's precisely why games typically handle that within the confines of scripted dialogue events. In fact, that's a very good use for the (Lie) option, when there are two identical options. One suggests you intend to do more within this "quest" (such as go tell someone where the guy whom you just assured was totally safe is), so you don't get awarded XP for "completing" it. If you're going to betray the guy, you should get credit for that, but to design the system to award you credit for two exclusive things (not-betraying someone AND betraying them) is silly.

Once again, objective XP shines. The ultimate outcomes will have, beneath them, possible sub-objectives. If you choose to deliver the artifact straight to Frederick (who is a crooked guy who wants it, even though Reginald is its rightful owner), you can go straight to him with it, getting a reward for the artifact quest (we'll assume you can't do anything with the artifact, yourself.)  OR, maybe you give it to Reginald, lie to him ("Yeah, don't worry about Frederick") so the game knows you intend to not go for the Reginald Lives Happily Ever After With His Artifact outcome, and then go tell Frederick where he is. Boom, Frederick gets the artifact, and maybe Reginald dies. It doesn't matter, because Reginald wasn't a combat challenge. He's simply something that CAN die, and his death only changes what you can accomplish. Obviously if you or Frederick goes and kills him, you can no longer change your mind and say "Nevermind, I want to help Reginald get his artifact, and live happily ever after." BUT, you could lie to Reginald (implying you're going to see Frederick), then go double-cross Frederick. Hell, maybe even set up an ambush with Reginald, so that he lures them into your deathtrap.

 

Either way, you get an award based on what you ultimately accomplish, in what manner. Kill Reginald? You get an XP award (once you take the artifact to Frederick), plus maybe some loot from Reginald's lifeless corpse, plus probably some effect to your reputation (at the very least with Frederick). Kill Frederick? You get an XP award (probably just for dealing with him, if he's a criminal bastard who affects more than just Reginald), plus loot from him and his lackeys, plus reputation change (in a different way.)

 

It's all in how you design the objectives. Not in whether or not you use kill-based XP or objective-only XP. If you design the objectives poorly, then you wind up with oodles of options being way better than other options (or some options not even being available at all.)

 

In a kill-based XP system, any option to kill something is ALWAYS going to give you more XP than choosing a different option. You either have to award a similar amount (it doesn't always have to be perfectly the same for all options in a given scenario, and I wouldn't expect it to. It's all about balance in the long haul) for the non-combat options and arbitrarily exclude the option to kill something after that, OR you have to remove the XP award from the death of that thing you could kill because you've already done a non-combat solution, OR everyone who kills ALWAYS gets more XP. Always. Those are the only three options. And guess what? 1 and 2 are both perfectly doable in an objective-only XP system, via objective pre-requisities.

 

Objectives are conditional. That's the beauty of them.

 

If 2 armies are battling, one in a city, one attacking that city, and you ask them "What's the objective here?", The army inside the city is going to say "To defend this city from these attackers!". Meanwhile, the army outside will say "To defeat these defenders and take the city!"

 

What point would there be in awarding someone XP who successfully defends the city, THEN kills everyone in the city? You can't be on BOTH sides of the battle.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Lephys

[Lephys]

People really need to reign in the absolutes.  You might say all this Lephys but have yet to prove how all this will actually work.. especially considering how non-linear the game should be.  What if I want to go hunt basilisks?  They going to give me nothing?  Are we going to replace "xp problem" with "loot problem"?  Or maybe I need an npc to tell me to go kill them?  Talk about a training wheels scenario.  Let's hold the player's hand all throughout the game.

So, if I can't prove it's possible, is it impossible?

 

You "there's a problem with this system" lot keep saying, over and over again, "Here's the problem that definitely exists with that system." And since all my "Okay, that's a concern, but not a definite problem" talk has been met with "How is it not a definite problem?", I have to assume that you're opting to say that it isn't merely a concern to be dealt with in the design, but rather a "this will always be a problem because of the system being used."

 

But I keep showing how that's only a problem under certain circumstances, more specific than "we're awarding XP only for indefinite things called objectives."

 

Why do you get to argue "what you say is always impossible," then respond to my "no, it's actually entirely possible" with "Okay, prove that it's DEFINITELY never going to happen like that!"?

 

When did I ever say that I can predict the future? If you give a man a car, he CAN travel way farther than he could on foot, in a day's time. How the hell do I know if he's GOING to use the car or not? Maybe he drives it into a tree, a mile before the maximum on-foot range.

 

If you're going to argue an inherent problem with the objective-only XP system, then I dare say you have yet to prove anything. My argument is "I have yet to see an inherent problem that exists no matter how you use the system," so I'd say it stands until someone proves otherwise. I'm not trying to be an arse, here. That's just how things are. Why do I feel I'm right and you're wrong? Because I'm saying "We can't be sure of that," and you're saying "Yes, we can totally be sure of this." And you were just talking about absolutes.

 

Also to note, a game is, quite literally, a set of boundaries and options. Everything in every game is only possible if the developers code it in. So, that's not something that can be attributed to how you decide to structure your XP system. That's just a thing to consider whenever making any game, ever, much less an RPG that happens to be Project:Eternity and happens to be using an objective-based XP system.

 

So, you see? I'm not saying "Every word you typed is wrong." You're quite right, but all the things you're bringing up are valid concerns worth considering in the design process, rather than reasons to not use an objective-based XP system.

 

 

Feel free to present scenarios you feel cannot be tackled properly by the proposed system, and I will gladly do my best to point out how they can, all day long. If I cannot, then we will both be all the wiser. And if I always can, we still will be all the wiser. This is the purpose of discussion.

 

Incidentally, if you want to hunt basilisks, then I'd imagine the portions of the game in which the developers specifically placed basilisks (since the game code didn't create basilisks without their knowledge) would have been designed accordingly. Maybe I should put it this way... Will there be basilisks in the game that are huntable for XP PURELY because people might want to hunt basilisks in the game for XP? I would hope not. SHOULD the basilisks give you something? Probably so, but it really depends.

 

A better question is this: Should the basilisks just be randomly strewn about the land for no reason other than for you to optionally kill them? Should they arbitrarily not constitute any portion of any other objective in any way, shape, or fashion? How hard would it be to make them an objective? Pretty easy, right? So, there's no reason they couldn't be an objective, and give you XP. Whether or not they SHOULD depends entirely on how the rest of the game, around them, is designed.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

There is the faction/reputation aspect though, which was discussed in Cause and Effect.

 

The point is, you may get more XP and loot for betrayal, but you'll inevitably anger factions if you do so, so there will be a trade-off.  If you're playing a neutral/lawful/good lead character, then you may be punished even more for such a radical departure from your regular behaviour. And there is also the option of Powergaming, which means your agenda might be to antagonize as many factions as possible so they come after you.

[Lephys]

^ Yes, but powergaming is still operating within the constraints of a system. If you cannot fly, then powergaming doesn't ever involve flying. You can't say "But I want to kill the birds, too! You hate powergamers because I can't fly and reach the birds!!!"

 

You obviously shouldn't be able to kill every single living thing you ever come across, so that's already an understandable limitation on what you should and shouldn't be able to get XP for the death of. So, it doesn't make any sense to say "You can't not-give XP for that thing's death, because that's one fewer option for powergamers to gain XP with!"

 

Again I say, whether or not you make various optional objectives mutually exclusive has NOTHING to do with not wanting people to get to do all three of them because they'll get too much XP. It's about all three of them each awarding XP, in conjunction, not making any sense. You're going to have some scenarios where it makes sense, in which case the powergamer CAN do all three, if he so chooses, because they're all optional and don't exclude any others. And in SOME scenarios, it's going to make sense that they're mutually exclusive (you can't save a village AND destroy it; the second you destroy it, you haven't saved it, and you've only saved it when you never, ever destroy it), so the powergamer has to pick one or the other.

 

There's a difference between wanting to choose all available options, and being unhappy with the number of options available.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Lephys

[TheMufflon]

Do you even know what post hoc means?  Just randomly throwing out "logical grievances" doesn't make them actually true you know.  If the original goal of the quest was "get these guys to leave" it would stand to reason that completion of said objective would result in them oh I don't know actually leaving or dieing[sic] (which is just leaving in another sense). 

 

That reasoning requires the imposition of a non-diegetic object (i.e. the "quest") on the story, and therefore not be rationalised a priori. Only after the quest has been constructed and imposed on the story (as opposed to the quest resulting from the story) does your reasoning make sense. Hence it is a post hoc rationalisation. That this is what I meant is quite clear from my original statement, and if you had taken the time to understand my argument then (instead of assuming that I picked my words "randomly") you could have saved us all some time.

 

 

I could've sworn Josh said that toggling xp options was easy say like a page or so back?  Oh look there it is!

 

And if toggling XP had anything to do with what I wrote about, that would could have been relevant.

 

 

That's only a viable option if game designers allow it to be a viable option not because you say so.

 

You propose to find every instance of possible redundancy and add a (from a diegetic POV) contrived reason for why it won't work? That sounds like putting in a lot of effort just to annoy the players.

 

 

A giant load of hogwash if I ever saw it[sic] and even if it is true then maybe it's high time we beat it out of the players.  Munchkins will stop being munchkins if they get burned enough times.  My version of progress allows a "Hammer Session" variant of therapy.

 

Belligerent moralising? Oh, please. Video games are entertainment. People play them to have fun. Two of the things that are fun in RPGs are (a) advancing through the story and (b) mechanically developing your character. One thing that isn't fun in RPGs is (x) doing the same thing over and over (a.k.a. grinding). If we give rewards for using tools, then it holds that doing (x) (e.g., solving the same quest in all different ways or killing everything) leads to (b). This puts the player in a bad position: either do (x) (which isn't fun) to get (b), or don't do (x) and get less (b) (which isn't fun either). This isn't very fun for the player. That's why instead of rewarding using tools, we reward achieving goals (i.e. (a)). In this scenario the player isn't conflicted, because all the fun things lie in the same direction. Whereas your solution is apparently to scream "It's not a bad game, you are just playing it wrong!" at the players.

 

And now for the fun part: responding to all the petty insults!

 

 

I hate people that try to grasp at straws.

 

If your posts contained anything but straw I'd grasp at that, but it seems we are both sh*t out of luck in that regard.

 

 

A giant load of hogwash if I ever saw it[sic]

 

​Indeed, you seem a credible connoisseur of pig-swill.

 

 

I don't think you quite understand that if I was designing a game i'd[sic] be a munchkins[sic] worst nightmare.

 

Oh, I understand just fine; and I agree: you would make a awful game designer!

Edited February 5, 2013 by TheMufflon

[Razsius]

@Lephys

 

At least I try Lephys.  I don't say it's always impossible btw Lephys just that there would be specific "holes" in an objective based xp system which would make the game oh I don't know... not fun?  I guess you could say i'm saying it's highly improbable rather than straight out impossible (largely because nothing is impossible).

 

 

So, you see? I'm not saying "Every word you typed is wrong." You're quite right, but all the things you're bringing up are valid concerns worth considering in the design process, rather than reasons to not use an objective-based XP system.

 

Wait, wait, wait what?  *Looks up* oh right you believe everything can be solved regardless.

 

 

Incidentally, if you want to hunt basilisks, then I'd imagine the portions of the game in which the developers specifically placed basilisks (since the game code didn't create basilisks without their knowledge) would have been designed accordingly. Maybe I should put it this way... Will there be basilisks in the game that are huntable for XP PURELY because people might want to hunt basilisks in the game for XP? I would hope not. SHOULD the basilisks give you something? Probably so, but it really depends.

 

Oh there's something inherently wrong with this?  The reward for killing something that can kill you in a single shot is a fair amount of xp and the satisfaction of actually surviving.  Stating that maybe you should get some kind of reward is a little constraining to player choice don't you think?  Well the basilisk may give you something or it may give you absolutely nothing.  Sounds like great fun.

 

 

A better question is this: Should the basilisks just be randomly strewn about the land for no reason other than for you to optionally kill them? Should they arbitrarily not constitute any portion of any other objective in any way, shape, or fashion? How hard would it be to makethem an objective? Pretty easy, right? So, there's no reason they couldn't be an objective, and give you XP. Whether or not they SHOULD depends entirely on how the rest of the game, around them, is designed.

 

Oh it would be very easy to make them an objective but would you do the same for every single monster type you may run into?  I'll turn that question around should every action I take be dictated by whether there's a quest giver for the types of monsters I wish to hunt or maybe the ones I just run into while exploring?   Is there an arbitrary cap on the quest giver like "Kill 15 basilisks"?  Why do I not get xp for killing 14 of them?  Do I get xp for killing more than 15?  Maybe it's just a quest turn in for basilisk tails and I get xp per tail... but what happened to degenerate kill xp?  Is the npc now a degenerate kill quest npc?  What was the point of even creating such a quest giver if it's going to resemble kill xp anyways?  Do we change it to basilisk tails give gold instead of xp?  Why is this not degenerate gold?  Would you like some more questions?

 

@TheMufflon

 

That reasoning requires the imposition of a non-diegetic object (i.e. the "quest") on the story, and therefore not be rationalised a priori. Only after the quest has been constructed and imposed on the story (as opposed to the quest resulting from the story) does your reasoning make sense. Hence it is a post hoc rationalisation. That this is what I meant is quite clear from my original statement, and if you had taken the time to understand my argument then (instead of assuming that I picked my words "randomly") you could have saved us all some time.

 

I've never known such a petty bastard.  I didn't realize what the supposed "problem" with my rationale was until I realized I was talking to a damn munchkin.  My apologies I forgot I was actually taking into account game systems when I was using my reasoning behind the quest.  Yes, your problem is "maybe they don't leave" right?  I.e. for the guy that hates how "mechanical" a quest giver can be because it always assumes your "success" in the completion of a quest and yes it does.  In fact, I can't think of a single example where this is not true in rpgs and it probably has something to do with game systems having you know actual boundaries.  Let's assume instead you code for the fact that you can spit in the player's face instead.  Why would this be "fun" exactly?  No, scratch that I don't even want to know your reasoning.

 

 

And if toggling XP had anything to do with what I wrote about, that would could have been relevant.

 

My it must be nice to have selective memory.

 

 

But you had to resort to post-hoc contrivances to make them exclusive: an "Everyone Dies" deus ex machina* and non-diegetic effects of a switch between the arbitrary states "hostile" and "friendly". Implementing it for just this quest is clunky, implementing it for every quest is impracticable.

 

I.e giving xp or not giving xp right?  Unless you misunderstood one of my original concepts i'm not sure...

 

Kind of hard to tell when a guy can't decide the tense of a sentence he types.

 

 

You propose to find every instance of possible redundancy and add a (from a diegetic POV) contrived reason for why it won't work? That sounds like putting in a lot of effort just to annoy the players.

 

As opposed to what?  Putting the player in the designers box?  I'll take the former thank you i'm not sure I want anything to do with whatever the hell you're advocating.

 

 

Belligerent moralising? Oh, please. Video games are entertainment. People play them to have fun. Two of the things that are fun in RPGs are (a) advancing through the story and (b) mechanically developing your character. One thing that isn't fun in RPGs is (x) doing the same thing over and over (a.k.a. grinding). If we give rewards for using tools, then it holds that doing (x) (e.g., solving the same quest in all different ways or killing everything) leads to (b). This puts the player in a bad position: either do (x) (which isn't fun) to get (b), or don't do (x) and get less (b) (which isn't fun either). This isn't very fun
for the player. That's why instead of rewarding using tools, we reward achieving goals (i.e. (a)). In this scenario the player isn't conflicted, because all the fun things lie in the same direction. Whereas your solution is apparently to scream "It's not a bad game, you are just playing it wrong!" at the players.

 

Funny how I didn't grind at all or munchkin any quests in Baldur's Gate yet still seemed to come out with enough xp to complete the game handily.  It's almost like that xp system actually worked and i've played through 4+ times no less what a droll and boring game it must've been.  Meanwhile, Mr. objective based xp system VtM: B decided to handily insult any "choice" i decided to make concerning combat.  Getting snubbed by "Mr. Objective's" game system totally removed the conflict I never had from playing Baldur's Gate and replaced it with roses.  Or not.  I don't need designers to "fix" something I never had a problem with in the first place.  Like your line of reasoning (lawl), it totally forgoes that there might be players that play the game outside of their "box" the only thing I prefer fixing are players that exploit game systems.

 

 

​Indeed, you seem a credible connoisseur of pig-swill.

 

I wouldn't know though you seem to imply you have vast experience in the matter.

 

 

Oh, I understand just fine; and I agree: you would make a awful game designer!

 

Said the guy who's contributed basically nothing to this thread.

[Lephys]

@Lephys

 

At least I try Lephys.  I don't say it's always impossible btw Lephys just that there would be specific "holes" in an objective based xp system which would make the game oh I don't know... not fun?  I guess you could say i'm saying it's highly improbable rather than straight out impossible (largely because nothing is impossible).

I don't feel I owe you quotes of all instances of my diction choice throughout all the posts that illustrate quite clearly my intention of stating why it's entirely possible to take care of anything that anyone's brought up thus far with objective-based XP. As much as I type, I don't think it can be said I don't go out of my way to make sure I don't cause unnecessary misunderstanding.

 

So, if you're merely arguing that something's "improbable," why are you arguing AGAINST my points?

 

"See, that's all COULD be done with this system."

"No, see, this would happen (super ultra most likely)."

 

Why wouldn't you just say "Yeah, that's true. That being said, we'd just have to take this potential scenario into account."? Better yet, why did you just say "I'm not saying it's impossible," then follow that with "there would just be specific 'holes' in an objective based xp system" which would make the game not fun?

 

"This system = holes. I'm not saying anything definite, though." Right up there is the first time you've EVER suggested you were arguing probability rather than an absolute. Seriously. Why the need for this?

 

 

Wait, wait, wait what?  *Looks up* oh right you believe everything can be solved regardless.

I'm gonna be nice, and break it down into the simplest form I know how, since you just quoted me on something, then replied with something that COMPLETELY circumvented anything I just said in the quote... that you voluntarily quoted me on...

 

People are all "You want to fill a glass with water? But what if it spills?". To which I said "Okay, yeah, we should make sure it doesn't spill, but a glass containing water doesn't just spill itself. More specifics are needed for it to spill. You can fill a glass with water without spilling it."

 

And you said "Yeah, but you can't do that, because water can spill out of a glass!". To which I responded, "Yes, this is true. But water won't NECESSARILY spill out of a glass. I think there's nothing wrong with filling a glass with water, as long as we make sure not to spill the glass of water."

 

Then, you quoted that and said "LOLZ! So you think this thing I'm not even arguing as being DEFINITELY problematic isn't definitely problematic? Hahaha! Oh that's right! I'll mock you now, as if you believe in Santa Clause, ^_^. What an enjoyable misuse of a forum! *GUFFAW*"

Oh it would be very easy to make them an objective but would you do the same for every single monster type you may run into? I'll turn that question around should every action I take be dictated by whether there's a quest giver for the types of monsters I wish to hunt or maybe the ones I just run into while exploring? Is there an arbitrary cap on the quest giver like "Kill 15 basilisks"? Why do I not get xp for killing 14 of them? Do I get xp for killing more than 15? Maybe it's just a quest turn in for basilisk tails and I get xp per tail... but what happened to degenerate kill xp? Is the npc now a degenerate kill quest npc? What was the point of even creating such a quest giver if it's going to resemble kill xp anyways? Do we change it to basilisk tails give gold instead of xp? Why is this not degenerate gold? Would you like some more questions?

You got me. Objectives = quest givers. In fact, someone at the beginning of the game says "You must beat the final boss!". Then, the entire game goes by with "Beat the final boss" plastered on the screen in your little objectives box. And then, if there's ever a time your party gets captured and has to escape, some guy in town, before that happens, has to come up to you and say "Hey, spoiler alert, but... if you escape after you get captured in the future, I'll grant you some XP! 8D"

 

Because, see, accomplishments and adventures don't grant XP. NPC genies do. Obviously there's no other way, because I tried to point out there was, and what do I know?! u_u.

 

Way to be an arse, man. Voluntarily so.

 

 

I don't post on these forums to win personal battles. The only reason I show disrespectful people the simple courtesy of responding and clarifying is the fact that OODLES of other people read all this. Not just you and I. So, it doesn't matter that you are more focused on whether or not I used the perfect words or proved all possibilities in existence than you are on actually constructively achieving a useful analysis of objective-based XP.

 

Do you know how I arrive at my conclusions? I look at things from your perspective, THEN I see if my previous understanding still holds true from your perspective. If it does, I point it out. If it doesn't, I say "Oh, man, you're right." Either way, I win. Why? Because I understand more than I did. This isn't friggin' Highlander. There can be more than one. Aggregate understanding. You should really try it sometime.

 

How bout you pretend like logic and reason aren't silly trifles, and spend a little less time trying to suggest how much anything I say that you don't understand is stupid, and I'll be happy to continue discussion with you.

 

I don't think you're stupid. I just think you're letting yourself be childish, and I don't need to waste my time with you refusing to acknowledge valid factors and points, and side-stepping the ones you don't like.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Lephys

[PrimeJunta]

This analogy would hold true if the "placed xp" didn't directly interfere with the taste of the "wine."  VtM:B slapped me in the face HARD multiple times when I chose "combat option."  The "wine" didn't taste very good at all in fact it tasted more like a poison because even people firmly in the camp of placed xp realized that the scenario I had given them equated to a meaningless choice by me.  I wouldn't exactly call that a success of an xp system.

It does affect the bouquet, but whether it makes it better, worse, or just different is a matter of taste. Which do you prefer, Cabernet or Shiraz?

 

I also share your dislike of combat in VtM:B -- it was awful; click-spammy, unbalanced, frustrating. Just plain bad.

Edited February 5, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[JFSOCC]

@Prime

 

 

@Raszius: it's about the why of those numbers. There are games where the numbers going up are thegame, more or less. Roguelikes, MMO's, the Diablo series, arguably some of the more dungeon-crawly of the IE series (the IWD's, ToEE).

 

The only games where I really notice the numbers are the grindy ones like the Diablos and certain MMOs and stuff.  Coincidentally, these are also the "rpgs" I tend to least like to play.

 

 

Then there are games where the numbers are a means to an end. There are numbers and they go up, for sure, and as they go up, you get

stronger. But that's not all they're about. The numbers interact with the rest of the game to determine your place in an imagined world, and the imprint you leave on it. I'd put Fallout, PS:T, BG2, MotB, the KOTOR's, and VtM:B in this category. They're games that are about something, and the system is just a way to hold whatever they're about. In general, I prefer that kind of game.

 

So the way I read Ffordeson's intent, and the way I feel about this stuff, is that I prefer games where the system -- the numbers that go up -- are of instrumental value only. They're the vessel that holds the wine. A crystal goblet won't make rotgut any more palatable, and a fine wine will be good even drunk from a cracked clay mug.

 

This analogy would hold true if the "placed xp" didn't directly interfere with the taste of the "wine."  VtM:B slapped me in the face HARD multiple times when I chose "combat option."  The "wine" didn't taste very good at all in fact it tasted more like a poison because even people firmly in the camp of placed xp realized that the scenario I had given them equated to a meaningless choice by me.  I wouldn't exactly call that a success of an xp system.  There was NEVER a point in time where I thought the combat option was equally viable to a stealth path.  Never.  Stealth was pretty much always easier.

 

 

This is also why I think the most important feature of the game system is that it makes the lives of the vintners as easy as possible; lets them pour in the kind of wine they want to make. That's the main reason (although there are others) I'm firmly in the "placed XP" camp: it's way easier to tune than any form of "systemic XP" and so makes it easier for them to make us a better wine.

 

You can tell me that after you answer the question above.  Which path is "best" in the above scenario?  If it's hard to figure out that means there's actual choice involved not the non-choice of Josh's example or the non-existent options of VtM:B.

 

 

 

 

Now the real question.  Which is the best path?

 

Simple. The optimal path is a combination of the Combat Path, the Stealth Path, and the Diplomatic path. E.g., first you sneak in and rob the secret room, then you sneak back out and approach them diplomatically, and once you've taken over the cult you kill everyone.

 

This yields the following rewards: 30,000 quest completion XP, 15,000 XP for killing the cult leader, 12,500 XP for finding the treasure room, 10,000 XP for tricking the cult, all the loot in the entire complex, all the cult leaders items, and your choice of quest reward item. It is by far the most profitable solution.

 

This is why rewarding XP based on using tools, rather than achieving goals, is a bad idea: it encourages the player to use more tools than is necessary to complete a task, resulting in redundancy.

 

 

 

Apparently I didn't make this clear enough but each of those paths are exclusive to completing the quest.  There is no "all 3" option.  If you do the stealth path first and come back all you'll find are dead bodies and an empty cave.  You have, after all, just stolen the only artifact of their god they possessed.  The cult leader would've likely lost complete control of his cult and the members would have lost morale and will.  You would come back to nothing which is why the quest was completed in the first place.  The quest for those who can't figure it out is "Remove the cult that is menacing our town/city."  If you try the diplomatic option they have again left their cave as you told them to.  They now follow you their "god."  The artifact is "yours."  If you for some stupid reason try to betray one of the few advantages you have gained by using the Evil Path you will gain zip for kill xp (because they are now friendly to you) and paltry loot off the collective members corpses.  That is of course assuming you do not get horribly overwhelmed by near endless spawning hordes of them if you initiate on them wrong.

 

You have failed this test quite handily.

 

 

I see your points, and they're well made when applied to the examples you give.

So, let's assume that encounters will be designed with the reward system in mind (whichever that would be) And thus engineered to avoid abuse.

Let's assume that whichever path you choose, the rewards will reflect the difficulty. with a small margin allowed for preference. (since some players will find one path easier than another.)

 

Because I believe -that- is the core of this entire discussion. The inherent mistrust of a proper risk/reward balance.

I think you needn't be afraid. I believe that with an objective based reward system, and slight differences in reward based on which path you choose, no choice will be automatically the best one. Stealth might reward you with items which improve your stealth abilities, while choosing combat you may gain loot which improves your combat ability, and if you pick diplomatic options, perhaps you can convince your opponents to give up the location of that cloak of charisma +1. (an oversimplified example to be sure, but I hope it gets my point across)

 

You are correct in saying that objective based rewards are not automatically better, but I do believe they will offer more room for the developers to build encounters which don't have a single right answer, which in the past was sometimes the case.

[Bitula]

The way I see it, is that old school RPGS, BG, IWD etc. were based on combat XP (and Quest XP). The more we progress in time the more alternative RPG elements have been added, like dialogs, sneak options, which supplemented the core system and put some more color and mood into the game. However it should not happen in a game which has been advertised as retro to give the additional elements and colors so big a significance that they upset core mechanics. These “color” elements should in no way upset the good old core mechanics. There can be more and more of them, which is welcome, but don’t let them become the essence of the game. By the way, sneaking is actually a lesser mechanics and should be so in games where you have parties. Just imagine, how would you sneak past anyone with all seven members. Silly, awkward and not fun. Three of your members are not even controllable, so I would rather leave the sneak option as an in combat ability (eg.: backstab). I am mostly talking about dungeons and hostile territories. In friendly towns combat is a no-issue, feel free to implement crafting systems, guilds etc. Btw, would be nice to reintroduce the good old Training Halls,  so you do not level on spot which is less realistic!

[TRX850]

Levelling up at training halls would be more fun I think. It would become an event in itself; a player-generated side quest if you will. Especially if you're part way through another side quest.

Maybe it costs money to train and level up.

Maybe there are other "consumables" or resources you need to take with you.

 

Levelling up was always a big deal in the PnP days. It should have a little fanfare surrounding it in a cRPG to bring back some of that retro feel.

[Bitula]

 

However it should not happen in a game which has been advertised as retro to give the additional elements and colors so big a significance that they upset core mechanics.

PE is not advertised as retro game it's advertised as spiritual successor. Spiritual successor does not mean carbon copy. Like new Torment game which is set in different setting and will have different mechanics. I would wish some people to wrap this idea around their head.

But I am quite sure that many interpreted it as at least semi-retro. Of course not a carbon copy, but not a complete overhaul as well.

[Helm]

 

Well, Josh seems to be copying a lot from D&D 4E....

 

But nobody ever expected PE to use D&D rules anyway, only the fundamental mechanics.

 

I don't know about that.  D&D mechanics were clunky as hell when adopted for a crpg.  Those 6 second rounds drove me nuts as I had to constantly guess when I could chug another potion or use another item and at the difficulty I always play at 6 seconds is your death if you aren't careful.  I could also do without the AC mechanics of D&D and i'm not particularly attached to D20 rolls, etc.  These mechanics are certainly things i'm familiar with but it's not like it's the only system i've ever seen used in rpgs.  In fact, this is probably the area rpgs should always be "evolving."  Anyways, let me tag you out as you could probably use some rest.

My wording was somewhat unfortunate. I meant the fundamental mechanics of a IE style tactical combat based RPG (party based, 6 characters, combat xp, quest xp, lots of magic and weapons, etc.) and not the D&D ruleset itself.

[Helm]

 

However it should not happen in a game which has been advertised as retro to give the additional elements and colors so big a significance that they upset core mechanics.

PE is not advertised as retro game it's advertised as spiritual successor. Spiritual successor does not mean carbon copy. Like new Torment game which is set in different setting and will have different mechanics. I would wish some people to wrap this idea around their head.

Yes it is.

 

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

 

 

Party based game, spiritual successor of the IE games, and no kill xp? 

 

Yeah, it's ridiculous. There is no more choice, all you have to do now is cross that imaginary line however you feel like it. You get the same amount of xp for and fighting, sneaking or being diplomatic. Ridiculous.

 

Not to mention that the IE games were based heavily upon combat which is not the case for PE anymore. Yeah, I bet that is what all of the backers were expecting.... (no, not really).

Edited February 6, 2013 by Helm