Degenerate Gameplay

[Hassat Hunter]

regardless of when you get paid the person who does the most work should get the most reward. And while I agree completely that monetary rewards (Like paying you 1000 gold to slay the dragon. When Exp makes a whole lot less sense to be divvy out in such away. When I workout I don't suddenly grow muscles a week later. but thats besides the point. The more I work out during the month the better the results whether I see them gradually or all at once after a month.

Indeed.

Sadly enough, that's usually not the case. You and your co-worker could both worked 32 hours, paid the same. But it's 100% impossible both did the same amount of work. There always will be this variation.

Same with questing in RPG's. And it's not a good way to reward one specific task more than the other, in this case, combat. Or you almost guarantee people will do it for the reward.

It's why most people will want to work on sundays, it pays more than ordinary days. But one can hardly make everyone work on sunday alone and not the rest of the days. Nor is working on sunday really "harder" or " easier" than other days...

 

I understand why it's a bit more abstract for XP or like your working out... but the other solution would be The Elder Scrollish-kind "Raise what you do"...

And we all know how good that works there, so... yeah, this is the better golden middle.

Once again: if there is an easy way to align the systemic incentives with the in-game objectives, why would you not want to do that? If you were a designer, why would you knowingly leave in perverse incentives?

Not to mention it's easier for developers to balance out, allows various options older games didn't provide due to that combat-centric gameplay, and has a build-in saveguard against exploits (they probably still will be there, but they should be easier to catch and squeel). And it makes it easier to appraise an apparent players level by content played, which could vary far more wildly with combat XP.

In the end, like the OE-devs, I see many many pro's. And the few con's are nearly not enough to weigh up against it. Especially if they are basically about encounter design. Which is something that should be properly done anyway.

[PrimeJunta]

Why do you keep saying the system in the IE games sucked, but that they were great games? It does not make any sense and is a major contradiction.

 

I already answered that. Please pay attention, 'cuz I won't repeat it again.

 

I loved the IE games despite their flaws, not because of them. It is soooo possible to make a game that takes the best bits from them and corrects the worst bits. That's what I'm hoping P:E will be.

 

You should love the system, because the games were great (that is why you are here too)

 

I love parts of the system. The parts that don't suck. I loved the hand-painted 2D orthographic art. I loved the party-based gameplay, where you could pick your comrades from a largish pool and then develop their capabilities to suit your needs, and deploy them in a large variety of interesting, hand-crafted combat encounters against a massive bestiary of genuinely -- not just cosmetically -- different enemies. I loved the huge variety of spells I could pick from. I loved the intra-party interactions and the back stories my party comrades had. I loved the large variety of useful and interesting hand-crafted items that were in the game.

 

I could make a similar list of stuff I didn't care for so much, but maybe some other time. But no, I did not love every little thing about the game. The rogue path in Planescape: Torment sucks like a tornado, for example.

 

Combat + quest xp is the only way to go, just like in the spiritual predecessors. Quest only xp will only cause "degenerative" gameplay in a game that is based on strategical and tactical combat.

 

How will quest only XP give rise to degenerate strategies (if that's what you mean by "degenerative" gameplay?) Examples, plz. I've produced several examples of kill XP yielding degenerate strategies, so it's your turn now IMO. TL;DR: put up or shut up.

[UpgrayeDD]

I find it rather Ironic that you claim to be so perceptive about noticing things in games and fail to see that the quest/objective xp only system handing out equal rewards would not be rewarding the avoidance of combat/conflict.

 

True, it does, but in a way that is relatively easy to address. E.g. low-level loot drops from kills which more or less match your expected expenditure of resources for the battle. As an added perk, skillful players will be able to win battles with less resource use, meaning they'll end up ahead. This is a much easier problem to address than the imbalances introduced by kill XP.

Could you please elaborate on how it would be so terrible if the majority of Exp was quest based and some exp was rewarded for combat ahead of avoidance options?

 

I believe the inherent issue is the ability to double-dip into the XP.

 

Lets say you have 10 orcs guarding a chest that contains an object you've been hired to get (the quest).

 

If the 10 orcs have a 10xp for being killed value and the quest itself gives 500xp then

if you fight the ten orcs (100xp) and complete the quest (500xp) you get 600xp else

if you sneak past the orcs (no xp) and complete the quest (500xp) you get 500 xp

so the scenario encourages combat.

 

Same scenario but you add 100 xp for sneaking past the orcs to not encourage combat as a resolution

now if you sneak past the orcs (100xp) and complete the quest (500xp) and then double back and kill the orcs (100xp) you now encourage stealth complete quests and clean up for xp.

 

So now you have to deal with, how do you make sneak a viable option without adding an additional incentive to go back and kill the orcs upon completion of the ques. You could remove the orcs (but why do they leave when they don't know what they're guarding is gone?) so they can't be killed. You could make them unkillable (that sort of thing annoys players). Or you could script it so that if the quest is completed by stealth the orcs no longer give XP. But I think what the developers are saying, rather than looking at a low level (script something that changes the quest xp for each scenario) that they'd like a high level solution that works for all scenarios.

considering the character got 500 exp for sneaking how is it not still viable? when the sneak is twelve the none sneaker might be thirteen. Not all combat would be avoidable so thinking there would be always be 5:6 ratio in exp between the two choices in the above example would be a false assumption. In the end it might become 9:10 or 10:11 ratio. I don't think the path with the least effort(hiding) should be equal to the path that faced the conflict head on.

[Hassat Hunter]

Why do you keep saying the system in the IE games sucked, but that they were great games? It does not make any sense and is a major contradiction. You should love the system, because the games were great (that is why you are here too)

 

Combat + quest xp is the only way to go, just like in the spiritual predecessors. Quest only xp will only cause "degenerative" gameplay in a game that is based on strategical and tactical combat.

Like many games, they were great DESPITE the system.

PS:T? Horribly fell appart when the game became a fightfest. Was fun in Sigil though. And there was almost no fighting in Sigil.

KOTOR2? Same. Malachor is pretty bad. KOTOR1? Also the Star Forge was weaker due to the constant battles.

BG2? After Akthlata it started falling appart. Hate the underdark. And that's mostly combat instead of quests and exploration.

BG1? Baldur's Gate was more fun than treading the countryside. And the forests.

Vampire: Bloodlines? It's a reason why people call it Infinite Sewers. Cause they go on, mere combatfests... not fun. And that was even without combat XP so you could avoid them all (technically, in practice, it wasn't that easy)...

 

Do I need to say more?

[Amentep]

How will quest only XP give rise to degenerate strategies (if that's what you mean by "degenerative" gameplay?) Examples, plz. I've produced several examples of kill XP yielding degenerate strategies, so it's your turn now IMO. TL;DR: put up or shut up.

 

I don't want to put words in Helm's mouth but reading through this, I think the general fear is that by having quest XP, the system is encouraging whatever path requires the least amount of resources, thus you're replacing one system because it favors combat with a system that favors non-combat options.

 

I'm not 100% convinced this is the case, partially because we know so little of how the resources are actually going to work. If I remember correctly the stamina system already mitigates some of the issue in terms of using up health potions in combat since as I recall stamina regenerates relatively easily but health not so much; but I'd think a combat based party would be (or should be?) less inclined to suffer health losses as opposed to stamina. This means that limits to times of use on skills might be a more important resource for players (combat powers used in combat, stealth powers in stealth) and management of resources in regard to the unknown situations ahead on the quest as opposed to what's in the inventory. Not sure.

[Helm]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein.

 

Otherwise known as degenerate gameplay.

Oh, ok. How about we make this game a shooter and call it "Call of Eternity". That really is something different.

[Tamerlane]

Wait, are y'all really settling on the cat gimmick?

 

Daaaaamn.

[Amentep]

considering the character got 500 exp for sneaking how is it not still viable? when the sneak is twelve the none sneaker might be thirteen. Not all combat would be avoidable so thinking there would be always be 5:6 ratio in exp between the two choices in the above example would be a false assumption. In the end it might become 9:10 or 10:11 ratio. I don't think the path with the least effort(hiding) should be equal to the path that faced the conflict head on.

 

I'm not really saying its not viable (as it exists in games), but that the scenario encourages (via xp) the player using combat as a resolution.

 

"Least effort" is an interesting thought; is it harder for a fighter with loads of skills in fighting to beat an orc guard who is stronger and bigger than they are in armed combat, or a thief with a lot of sneaking skills to get past an orc guard who can see in the dark and has better hearing than they have? Seems to me that there's effort in both situations, but effort of a different kind.

[PrimeJunta]

I don't want to put words in Helm's mouth but reading through this, I think the general fear is that by having quest XP, the system is encouraging whatever path requires the least amount of resources, thus you're replacing one system because it favors combat with a system that favors non-combat options.

 

Yup, you're right. That is the general fear among the fearful. I'm a bit puzzled about it, since JES's explicit design intention is to craft a system that does not favor one approach over another.

 

I'm not 100% convinced this is the case, partially because we know so little of how the resources are actually going to work. If I remember correctly the stamina system already mitigates some of the issue in terms of using up health potions in combat since as I recall stamina regenerates relatively easily but health not so much; but I'd think a combat based party would be (or should be?) less inclined to suffer health losses as opposed to stamina. This means that limits to times of use on skills might be a more important resource for players (combat powers used in combat, stealth powers in stealth) and management of resources in regard to the unknown situations ahead on the quest as opposed to what's in the inventory. Not sure.

 

Indeed. We'll know when we'll know.

[UpgrayeDD]

considering the character got 500 exp for sneaking how is it not still viable? when the sneak is twelve the none sneaker might be thirteen. Not all combat would be avoidable so thinking there would be always be 5:6 ratio in exp between the two choices in the above example would be a false assumption. In the end it might become 9:10 or 10:11 ratio. I don't think the path with the least effort(hiding) should be equal to the path that faced the conflict head on.

 

I'm not really saying its not viable (as it exists in games), but that the scenario encourages (via xp) the player using combat as a resolution.

 

"Least effort" is an interesting thought; is it harder for a fighter with loads of skills in fighting to beat an orc guard who is stronger and bigger than they are in armed combat, or a thief with a lot of sneaking skills to get past an orc guard who can see in the dark and has better hearing than they have? Seems to me that there's effort in both situations, but effort of a different kind.

So how does that encounter giving 600 exp to every solution not favor the hiding party?

[Hassat Hunter]

Yeah. In the old topic they wanted to levitate that fear by giving stealth XP instead going past enemies. And diplomacy XP. All to keep combat XP and not use Quest XP.

 

Why do hard if you can do simple is one question that raises in me.

But mostly, I don't think people really understand how much underlining work is needed for that. Especially compared to plain Quest XP.

 

Stealth XP in particular is a big no-no. How do you know you've stealthed past someone? Does being out of LOS always count? If you go from one side of the map to the other, award all enemies you passed and never got close?

 

In short; It's a hellish nightmare to create. And I can't see any sane dev actually implenting it with a good pre-determined plan of approach.

[Amentep]

considering the character got 500 exp for sneaking how is it not still viable? when the sneak is twelve the none sneaker might be thirteen. Not all combat would be avoidable so thinking there would be always be 5:6 ratio in exp between the two choices in the above example would be a false assumption. In the end it might become 9:10 or 10:11 ratio. I don't think the path with the least effort(hiding) should be equal to the path that faced the conflict head on.

 

I'm not really saying its not viable (as it exists in games), but that the scenario encourages (via xp) the player using combat as a resolution.

 

"Least effort" is an interesting thought; is it harder for a fighter with loads of skills in fighting to beat an orc guard who is stronger and bigger than they are in armed combat, or a thief with a lot of sneaking skills to get past an orc guard who can see in the dark and has better hearing than they have? Seems to me that there's effort in both situations, but effort of a different kind.

So how does that encounter giving 600 exp to every solution not favor the hiding party?

 

Because - for now at least - I don't know what resources might end up being expended for the hiding party. For example, stealth mode could consume stamina and stamina used in stealth mode could have a penalty to regeneration that stamina used in combat doesn't. Thus making the player whose party build is such that a stealth resolution is viable have to decide whether use of resources to stealth solve the quest outweighs the resources for using combat for the same (with the added penalty to stealth that failure in the stealth past results in losing both the stealth resources and your combat resources).

 

But I'd like to think that if they're going to not encourage non-combat solutions at a high level that they're looking at ways to make the choice of resource use non trivial.

[UpgrayeDD]

regardless of when you get paid the person who does the most work should get the most reward. And while I agree completely that monetary rewards (Like paying you 1000 gold to slay the dragon. When Exp makes a whole lot less sense to be divvy out in such away. When I workout I don't suddenly grow muscles a week later. but thats besides the point. The more I work out during the month the better the results whether I see them gradually or all at once after a month.

Indeed.

Sadly enough, that's usually not the case. You and your co-worker could both worked 32 hours, paid the same. But it's 100% impossible both did the same amount of work. There always will be this variation.

Same with questing in RPG's. And it's not a good way to reward one specific task more than the other, in this case, combat. Or you almost guarantee people will do it for the reward.

It's why most people will want to work on sundays, it pays more than ordinary days. But one can hardly make everyone work on sunday alone and not the rest of the days. Nor is working on sunday really "harder" or " easier" than other days...

I'm not saying to always reward combat as the best choice. I'm merely asking to reward the paths that hold the most conflict and confrontation(whether combat or not)

[Amentep]

Yeah. In the old topic they wanted to levitate that fear by giving stealth XP instead going past enemies. And diplomacy XP. All to keep combat XP and not use Quest XP.

 

Why do hard if you can do simple is one question that raises in me.

But mostly, I don't think people really understand how much underlining work is needed for that. Especially compared to plain Quest XP.

 

Stealth XP in particular is a big no-no. How do you know you've stealthed past someone? Does being out of LOS always count? If you go from one side of the map to the other, award all enemies you passed and never got close?

 

In short; It's a hellish nightmare to create. And I can't see any sane dev actually implenting it with a good pre-determined plan of approach.

 

it also opens up the question of why a player can't be awarded stealth xp for constantly walking back and forth in front of the same enemies; if you follow the idea that stealthing past "something" gives you xp, then why does it only give you xp once?

 

Then there's the "Can you talk to the orc guard and diplomacy your way in (xp), sneak back out (xp) and then kill them all (xp)" problem...

[Helm]

How will quest only XP give rise to degenerate strategies (if that's what you mean by "degenerative" gameplay?) Examples, plz. I've produced several examples of kill XP yielding degenerate strategies, so it's your turn now IMO. TL;DR: put up or shut up.

Ohhhh, that is the question that always makes you rage, because you can't answer it. You answer is not satisfactory, because it makes absolutely no sense. You hated the gameplay, yet you loved the gameplay, yet you hated the gameplay but loved the game? wtf? lol

 

So I ask you again, why do you hate combat + quest xp, even though you loved the games that used it? That is a major mechanic and it improved the gameplay in the IE games enourmously.

 

And I have written about 55 times, why quest only xp is degenerate (but I know, you are blind): Quest only xp is a "degenerate system" in a game that is based heavily on tactical and strategical combat. It makes combat pointless because avoiding combat yields the best results, which is awkward for a game that is combat based.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Helm

[Amentep]

regardless of when you get paid the person who does the most work should get the most reward. And while I agree completely that monetary rewards (Like paying you 1000 gold to slay the dragon. When Exp makes a whole lot less sense to be divvy out in such away. When I workout I don't suddenly grow muscles a week later. but thats besides the point. The more I work out during the month the better the results whether I see them gradually or all at once after a month.

Indeed.

Sadly enough, that's usually not the case. You and your co-worker could both worked 32 hours, paid the same. But it's 100% impossible both did the same amount of work. There always will be this variation.

Same with questing in RPG's. And it's not a good way to reward one specific task more than the other, in this case, combat. Or you almost guarantee people will do it for the reward.

It's why most people will want to work on sundays, it pays more than ordinary days. But one can hardly make everyone work on sunday alone and not the rest of the days. Nor is working on sunday really "harder" or " easier" than other days...

I'm not saying to always reward combat as the best choice. I'm merely asking to reward the paths that hold the most conflict and confrontation(whether combat or not)

 

I'd like to think - and I may be wrong on this - that just because the "system" at the high level isn't intended to prefer one way to solve a quest over another, that in specific situations there could be (and should be) places where combat leads to preferable outcomes.

 

As I recall there was mention of objective and quest xp, so if a quest is broken down into 10 objectives, the quest might be completable by doing 4 objectives (stealth) 5 objectives (diplomacy) or 6 objectives (combat), thus making combat a "better" choice - but only for that particular quest (with the other objectives being optional but not required to complete the main quest). The idea being more objectives completed = more Quest XP when complete.

 

I may be misunderstanding this, however.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Amentep

[JFSOCC]

Yeah. In the old topic they wanted to levitate that fear by giving stealth XP instead going past enemies. And diplomacy XP. All to keep combat XP and not use Quest XP.

 

Why do hard if you can do simple is one question that raises in me.

But mostly, I don't think people really understand how much underlining work is needed for that. Especially compared to plain Quest XP.

 

Stealth XP in particular is a big no-no. How do you know you've stealthed past someone? Does being out of LOS always count? If you go from one side of the map to the other, award all enemies you passed and never got close?

 

In short; It's a hellish nightmare to create. And I can't see any sane dev actually implenting it with a good pre-determined plan of approach.

that's actually a good solution, if these xp's are part of separate upgrade paths. but that might not work out for a diverse party.

[UpgrayeDD]

considering the character got 500 exp for sneaking how is it not still viable? when the sneak is twelve the none sneaker might be thirteen. Not all combat would be avoidable so thinking there would be always be 5:6 ratio in exp between the two choices in the above example would be a false assumption. In the end it might become 9:10 or 10:11 ratio. I don't think the path with the least effort(hiding) should be equal to the path that faced the conflict head on.

 

I'm not really saying its not viable (as it exists in games), but that the scenario encourages (via xp) the player using combat as a resolution.

 

"Least effort" is an interesting thought; is it harder for a fighter with loads of skills in fighting to beat an orc guard who is stronger and bigger than they are in armed combat, or a thief with a lot of sneaking skills to get past an orc guard who can see in the dark and has better hearing than they have? Seems to me that there's effort in both situations, but effort of a different kind.

So how does that encounter giving 600 exp to every solution not favor the hiding party?

 

Because - for now at least - I don't know what resources might end up being expended for the hiding party. For example, stealth mode could consume stamina and stamina used in stealth mode could have a penalty to regeneration that stamina used in combat doesn't. Thus making the player whose party build is such that a stealth resolution is viable have to decide whether use of resources to stealth solve the quest outweighs the resources for using combat for the same (with the added penalty to stealth that failure in the stealth past results in losing both the stealth resources and your combat resources).

 

But I'd like to think that if they're going to not encourage non-combat solutions at a high level that they're looking at ways to make the choice of resource use non trivial.

the stealth mode would need to drain health and stamina in order for it to be considered equivalent to combat.

[Amentep]

the stealth mode would need to drain health and stamina in order for it to be considered equivalent to combat.

 

Not necessarily. There would just need to be an equivilent penalty, ie the loss of HP in combat isn't guaranteed but possible / loss of HP in stealth may be impossible, but other penalties may add to stealth to compensate so resources expended in either scenario would average to the same.

[Hassat Hunter]

And of course, like all stealths, if it fails you're pretty much dead.

 

What's better for you? Guaranteed a few HP damage? Or possibly none and risking a lot more?

 

Sounds like balance to me.

Both require investments during level ups and gear to minimalise losses.

[Lephys]

: *attempts at sarcasm*

 

: *kitty wonders who suggested quest XP removal* Sarcasm is meaningful only when it's the result of connecting facts and using logic.

 

I actually wasn't being sarcastic, so, you are sadly incorrect. Also, you cannot "attempt" sarcasm. You are either being sarcastic or you are not. It is a style of communication, not a puzzle or challenge. You can be sarcastic to no effect, or to much effect, but you are still being sarcastic or you aren't.

 

If reason and logic support the idea that combat kills should always produce an XP reward, then that same reason and logic support the idea that performing any other action that involves a progressive skill should also produce an XP reward. If "experience," meaning what it does, should logically be produced by combat, then any other form of character experience should reward game-system XP.

 

Assume it doesn't mean that, for a moment. Combat (in the existing level system that I haven't seen a proposed change to in any examples) leads to XP, which leads to level-up, which leads to an increase in your non-combat skills, such as Stealth. Therefore, you don't actually need to use a given skill to improve that skill. Therefore, sneaking should be able to improve combat, because actual first-hand experience is gained by utilizing your sneaking skill.

 

Now, if you had a system in which your level did not encompass improvements in both combat and non-combat skills, then things would be different. Of course, even in that system, it wouldn't make any sense for non-combat skills not to produce XP, and combat skills to produce XP. Non-combat skills would, at the very least, need to produce non-combat XP.

 

Using any of the criteria above, completeing a quest/objective (essentially, accomplishing a goal) does not, in and of itself, constitute an action or use of a skill. It can only result from some other action or skill usage, which reason already dictates should be rewarded, regardless of whether or not a goal was accomplished. So, logically, there is no basis for rewarding the completion of a goal or objective.

 

XP rewards upon goal completion are rewarding whatever actions and skill implementations the completion of that goal involved. If you merely walked your characters 50 feet and opened a chest to retrieve some iron ingots, then returned them to the smith who asked you to retrieve them, and you were rewarded with XP, then the XP is representative of moving and looting. Those actions are what was rewarded, since they are the only possible actions that will earn you that reward. Hence the term "Fetch Quests."

 

Imagine a quest of "Go kill those 10 orcs for me." You go kill the 10 orcs, earning you any amount of XP (for the act of killing the orcs.) Now, you talk to the quest-giver, and you're rewarded for the goal of eliminating the orcs, gaining some more XP. You just got rewarded twice for the exact same actions/applied-effort.

 

If you disagree or feel that my observation of reason is flawed, then I implore you to point it out within the context of my argument.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Lephys

[TMZuk]

What I love about many oldschool games, like FO and FO2, Arcanum and similar games, is that a quest only have a goal, not a set approach. Get rid of killpoints, and we are, in my opinion, one step closer to the feeling of the game being believable.

If you want the game to be believable then you should gain most Exp outside of combat training ceasesly to become the best of the best at you skills. So in keeping with your goal we should do away with Exp in quests and spend our days training in the mountains

 

A: Kill Everyone Now! Self-explanatory, I believe.

 

B: The Fools are Blind and Deaf! Your character could sneak past the God of Guards, he/she is that good!

 

C: What A Bunch of Suckers! The Devil would be afraid negotiating with your character.

 

So, why should one of these options be worth more, xp-wise, than another? You as player design a character. The game should present an equal number of opportunities for all designs. There should of course also be situations where either guile is useless, violence is futile or stealth pointless. That forces the character to rely on companions for certain situations.

Well if both B and C are true then it sounds like there was no challange at all in your given scenario. If they are doing a task that is so incrediable easy to them why are they being awarded at all. I think we should award them for eating pie while we are at it. A seems to be the only choice where you don't imply that its a walk in the park.

 

Yay for picking a simplified example apart and missing the point entirely. I shall attempt to make it more simple: Any quest could be resolved in number of ways. If succesfully resolved, a violent approach should not automaticly be worth more than a non-violent approach.

[UpgrayeDD]

What I love about many oldschool games, like FO and FO2, Arcanum and similar games, is that a quest only have a goal, not a set approach. Get rid of killpoints, and we are, in my opinion, one step closer to the feeling of the game being believable.

If you want the game to be believable then you should gain most Exp outside of combat training ceasesly to become the best of the best at you skills. So in keeping with your goal we should do away with Exp in quests and spend our days training in the mountains

 

A: Kill Everyone Now! Self-explanatory, I believe.

 

B: The Fools are Blind and Deaf! Your character could sneak past the God of Guards, he/she is that good!

 

C: What A Bunch of Suckers! The Devil would be afraid negotiating with your character.

 

So, why should one of these options be worth more, xp-wise, than another? You as player design a character. The game should present an equal number of opportunities for all designs. There should of course also be situations where either guile is useless, violence is futile or stealth pointless. That forces the character to rely on companions for certain situations.

Well if both B and C are true then it sounds like there was no challange at all in your given scenario. If they are doing a task that is so incrediable easy to them why are they being awarded at all. I think we should award them for eating pie while we are at it. A seems to be the only choice where you don't imply that its a walk in the park.

 

Yay for picking a simplified example apart and missing the point entirely. I shall attempt to make it more simple: Any quest could be resolved in number of ways. If succesfully resolved, a violent approach should not automaticly be worth more than a non-violent approach.

You were the one who asked and provided the examples

[Lephys]

A: Kill Everyone Now! Self-explanatory, I believe.

 

B: The Fools are Blind and Deaf! Your character could sneak past the God of Guards, he/she is that good!

 

C: What A Bunch of Suckers! The Devil would be afraid negotiating with your character.

 

So, why should one of these options be worth more, xp-wise, than another? You as player design a character. The game should present an equal number of opportunities for all designs. There should of course also be situations where either guile is useless, violence is futile or stealth pointless. That forces the character to rely on companions for certain situations.

Well if both B and C are true then it sounds like there was no challange at all in your given scenario. If they are doing a task that is so incrediable easy to them why are they being awarded at all. I think we should award them for eating pie while we are at it. A seems to be the only choice where you don't imply that its a walk in the park.

 

So option A couldn't possibly be easy? Also, imagine that options B and C are equally as tricky as combat (relative to your current combat, stealth, and diplomacy/negotiation skills, respectively). Example flaw: corrected. Any thoughts now?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Lephys

[UpgrayeDD]

UpgrayeDD have you considered that incentives might work differently?

to be honest I much prefere a New vegas approach to xp where quests/fighting/lockpicking/using skills to solve problems where you're experience was based around doing things and exploring. To me I much prefere it to Quest/objective only. I never really felt pressured in any way to solve things a certain way and felt rewarded when I poked around. The only game I can think of that I played with quest and objective only was Mass Effect 2 and I have to say I didn't much care for the way it played out. The chunks of exp they handed out and the fact that you couldn't achieve the max level. It felt like they had an over controling GM feel to it. Not to mention everything was scaled and linear which made the entire experience feel rather bland.