Degenerate Gameplay

[Helm]

Thing is your fundamentally different isn't mine. Even in that sentence I don't see anything that so far cannot be achieved by what we know of quest xp.

 

I knew this wasn't going to be a D&D game, so there's no real reason to keep D&D like rules. While I understand your fear that combat is going to be meaningless, I have - as of yet - to see anything that makes me think that will actually be the case.

Of course the D&D rules will not be used. As for the rest, read the thread.

[Hassat Hunter]

Talking, lots of talking, is also a core component of the game.

 

Do you get XP for talking to people?

Answer; no.

 

Are you no longer talking to any of the NPC's in the gameworld? I guess not.

 

So, why is there this problem with combat?

 

Yes, you do. In fact, most quests involve lots and lots of talking.

 

Should you get xp for exchanging a few meaningless words with a peasant or passerby? Surely not, like you'd get no xp for killing them or sneaking around them.

 

Also, quests involve a lot of sneaking. And combat. All leading to the big final reward.

But is the talking itself rewarded? No. Does that mean you no longer talk? No.

Is the sneaking itself rewarded? No. Does that mean you no longer sneak? No.

Is the combat itself rewarded? No. Does that mean you no longer do combat? No, except for some exclusions apparently. Who then tell us WE hate combat. While WE aren't skipping it.

It's strange...

 

All the extra dialogue is it's own reward. All the extra sneaking is it's own reward. All the additional combat it it's own reward...

[Helm]

Thing is your fundamentally different isn't mine. Even in that sentence I don't see anything that so far cannot be achieved by what we know of quest xp.

 

I knew this wasn't going to be a D&D game, so there's no real reason to keep D&D like rules. While I understand your fear that combat is going to be meaningless, I have - as of yet - to see anything that makes me think that will actually be the case.

 

Also, that anyone would think Josh Sawyer of all people, whose biggest investment in the PE blurb is IWD (compared to Avellone's PS:T), would somehow be "anti-combat" is complete and utter rubbish. Irrational, hysterical, whiny.

 

I mean, really.

Oh right, Sawyer is implementing sneaking and combat avoidance mechanics (like quest only xp), because they were in Icewind Dale and improved the combat, right? LOL.

 

You have to love the logic.

 

Not to mention that we are not complaing about the combat directly (which you would know if you actually read something in this thread). It is about the fact that combat will be pointless, because avoiding combat will yield the best results, which makes absolutely no sense in a tactical combat based games.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Valorian]

Also, that anyone would think Josh Sawyer of all people

 

He's making combat much less appealing by removing a significant incentive to engage in combat.

[Hassat Hunter]

I have a feeling neither of you really know the guys posts, ideas and/or reputation...

[Valorian]

Talking, lots of talking, is also a core component of the game.

 

Do you get XP for talking to people?

Answer; no.

 

Are you no longer talking to any of the NPC's in the gameworld? I guess not.

 

So, why is there this problem with combat?

 

Yes, you do. In fact, most quests involve lots and lots of talking.

 

Should you get xp for exchanging a few meaningless words with a peasant or passerby? Surely not, like you'd get no xp for killing them or sneaking around them.

 

Also, quests involve a lot of sneaking. And combat. All leading to the big final reward.

But is the talking itself rewarded? No. Does that mean you no longer talk? No.

Is the sneaking itself rewarded? No. Does that mean you no longer sneak? No.

Is the combat itself rewarded? No. Does that mean you no longer do combat? No, except for some exclusions apparently. Who then tell us WE hate combat. While WE aren't skipping it.

It's strange...

 

All the extra dialogue is it's own reward. All the extra sneaking is it's own reward. All the additional combat it it's own reward...

 

You're not rewarded for any combat, you're rewarded only for combat that ends in your favor.

You are not rewarded for general talking. You are rewarded for discovering new important informations when talking to people, persuading them regarding important issues. Etc.

 

Completing a quest is also its own reward. We're not removing quest XP though, are we?

[Amentep]

Thing is your fundamentally different isn't mine. Even in that sentence I don't see anything that so far cannot be achieved by what we know of quest xp.

 

I knew this wasn't going to be a D&D game, so there's no real reason to keep D&D like rules. While I understand your fear that combat is going to be meaningless, I have - as of yet - to see anything that makes me think that will actually be the case.

Of course the D&D rules will not be used. As for the rest, read the thread.

 

I have read the thread. It boils down to this - right now I don't see anything in what Josh has actually said that leads me to believe your fears that moving to quest XP is going to eliminate combat as a viable choice.

 

Right now what I see is an attempt to make stealth, diplomacy and combat viable choices.

 

The suggestions I've seen for Combat XP so far seem to all boil down to making combat the optimal choice and stealth and diplomacy less viable choices. Given that we know the game wants to have skills and PST style dialogue responsiveness, I don't feel comfortable suggesting that this is a better path. If someone can suggest a way to use Combat XP without making stealth and diplomacy undesirable I'd certainly be willing to give that a listen. But so far I haven't seen a workable suggestion; again the suggestions I see all fall back on "make combat the optimum conflict resolution path".

 

What we know is that the high level system is going to be designed for egality; that doesn't mean that all the quests will be designed so. Again from my understanding it is much easier to make a high level system that is equal than to create an unequal system and write additional code to make "abuses" (like stealthing past an enemy and going back to kill them for twice the xp) irrelevant.

[Hassat Hunter]

Completing a quest is also its own reward. We're not removing quest XP though, are we?

I don't mind... but this is a RPG.

How do you want to level and build up your character without XP?

[Amentep]

Completing a quest is also its own reward. We're not removing quest XP though, are we?

I don't mind... but this is a RPG.

How do you want to level and build up your character without XP?

 

I think if you're removing kill & quest xp, you're moving to a "XP for doing" system. 100 sword strikes = level up sword skill? Not terribly fond of those systems (at least the ones I've been exposed to)

[Valorian]

Completing a quest is also its own reward. We're not removing quest XP though, are we?

I don't mind... but this is a RPG.

How do you want to level and build up your character?

 

By giving combat xp + (specific instances of stealth/dialogue XP) + exploration xp + quest xp.

[Helm]

I have read the thread. It boils down to this - right now I don't see anything in what Josh has actually said that leads me to believe your fears that moving to quest XP is going to eliminate combat as a viable choice.

You don't engage in combat, because avoiding it yields the best results? Combat will be a waste of time and resources in almost every situation? There will be plenty of loot in the enviroment so you don't need combat loot? There is only quest xp?

Right now what I see is an attempt to make stealth, diplomacy and combat viable choices.

You mean only stealth or diplomacy.

The suggestions I've seen for Combat XP so far seem to all boil down to making combat the optimal choice and stealth and diplomacy less viable choices.

Since when has diplomacy not been a viable choice in the IE games or even Fallout for that matter? And they used combat + quest xp.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

The suggestions I've seen for Combat XP so far seem to all boil down to making combat the optimal choice and stealth and diplomacy less viable choices.

No. It only makes substantial stealth for every class a less viable choice (i.e. you sneak around everywhere)... which makes sense in a tactical combat based game just like the spiritual predecessors.

 

That is like, I dunno, saying that you should be able to sneak past every encounter in Modern Warfare 4.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Hassat Hunter]

By giving combat xp + (specific instances of stealth/dialogue XP) + exploration xp + quest xp.

That's not removing XP.

 

Also when we talk "quest XP" in this thread we really mean "Objective XP"... exploration bonus XP would be included in that.

Clearing that up since from this post, it seems that wan't clear.

I think if you're removing kill & quest xp, you're moving to a "XP for doing" system. 100 sword strikes = level up sword skill? Not terribly fond of those systems (at least the ones I've been exposed to)

You and me both. The less of the TES-grind system the better...

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Valorian]

By giving combat xp + (specific instances of stealth/dialogue XP) + exploration xp + quest xp.

That's not removing XP.

 

 

Removing xp is not my goal.

[Hassat Hunter]

Nor was it mine... however the question was "what if we give no quest XP" to which the counter was "how to level without XP"... figured you would answer that (didn't see that the no XP part was cut from the quote)...

 

Anyway, the current situation is...

(combat xp/stealth xp/dialogue XP) + exploration xp + quest completions = objective XP

why change it to;

combat xp + (specific instances of stealth/dialogue XP) + exploration xp + quest xp.

[Valorian]

Nor was it mine... however the question was "what if we give no quest XP" to which the counter was "how to level without XP"...

 

You've obviously already forgotten that you started with "so what if we remove combat/sneaking/dialogue xp (because it's a reward in itself)".

[Amentep]

Completing a quest is also its own reward. We're not removing quest XP though, are we?

I don't mind... but this is a RPG.

How do you want to level and build up your character?

 

By giving combat xp + (specific instances of stealth/dialogue XP) + exploration xp + quest xp.

 

In your scenario, how does combat then not become the optimal resolution of conflict?

 

Combat party = Combat XP + exploration xp + quest xp > (specific instances of stealth/dialogue XP) + exploration XP + quest XP = Stealth party

 

In essence, you're saying that you want the system to be unbalanced toward combat, yes?

 

I have read the thread. It boils down to this - right now I don't see anything in what Josh has actually said that leads me to believe your fears that moving to quest XP is going to eliminate combat as a viable choice.

You don't engage in combat, because avoiding it yields the best results? Combat will be a waste of time and resources in almost every situation? There will be plenty of loot in the enviroment so you don't need combat loot? There is only quest xp?

 

How do we know that combat is a waste of time and resources vs stealth when we don't know what resources will be used for stealth? This is the big assumption in this thread that I can't get past.

 

One would think if the goal is to make each choice viable then the cost of each choice (in general) would be equal.

 

The suggestions I've seen for Combat XP so far seem to all boil down to making combat the optimal choice and stealth and diplomacy less viable choices.

Since when has diplomacy not been a viable choice in the IE games? And they used the combat and quest xp.

 

Diplomacy and stealth were always limited cases of viabilty in the IE games. Having a thief in your party or putting points in stealth really only had the benefit of allowing you to disarm traps or scout outside of combat (in combat you could backstab and pull enemies by appearing from the shadows)

 

The suggestions I've seen for Combat XP so far seem to all boil down to making combat the optimal choice and stealth and diplomacy less viable choices.

No. It only makes substantial stealth for every class a less viable choice (i.e. you sneak around everywhere)... which makes sense in a tactical combat based game just like the spiritual predecessors.

 

That is like, I dunno, saying that you should be able to sneak past every encounter in Modern Warfare 4.

 

But here's the issue - and this may be the fundamental divide between players on this issue - to my mind, when you look at PST (combat bad and irrelevant) to IWD (combat required all the time) you've got a lot of room to cover - and a lot of flexibility to look at things beyond combat.

 

As you say, substantial stealth is irrelevant in the IE games - it makes thieves of limited use. Diplomacy as well. So what happens is you throw a thief and a diplomat in the party to be surrounded by your bloodletters and run headlong into combat every time. But is this the only way to do this? If the IE games were intended to bring the "Pen and Paper" RPGing to the computer, shouldn't the fact that P&P games are more flexible than the IE games were be addressed?

[Valorian]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

[Helm]

Anyway, the current situation is...

(combat xp/stealth xp/dialogue XP) + exploration xp + quest completions = objective XP

-> dialogue xp + exploration xp + objective/quest xp

Fixed.

[Amentep]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

 

So you'd be okay with a system that, for example, doesn't reward combat against weaker enemies at all, but still rewards stealth options?

 

So lets say a CR encounter 2 levels above the party gives the same XP to stealth and combat but a CR encounter 5 levels below the party only gives XP to the stealth party (because there's still some "effort" involved on the part of the sneaking party in sneaking but not in fighting the punny fellows)?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Amentep

[Helm]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

This.

 

Why should one player who simply sneaks through an area receive the exact same amount of xp as another who fights his way through?

[Amentep]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

This.

 

Why should one player who simply sneaks through an area receive the exact same amount of xp as another who fights his way through?

 

If they're both using equivalent levels of their resources to accomplish their chosen path...how are the two any different?

 

The scenario is only imbalanced if there is no risk or expense in stealth options - for the system proposed to work I'd think there would have to be equivilency in resources used (or else your fears would be right).

 

It seems to me that the disagreement here is one side believing that stealth won't (or perhaps can't?) have an equivalent resource drain to combat. Would that be accurate?

[Valorian]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

 

So you'd be okay with a system that, for example, doesn't reward combat against weaker enemies at all, but still rewards stealth options?

 

So lets say a CR encounter 2 levels above the party gives the same XP to stealth and combat but a CR encounter 5 levels below the party only gives XP to the stealth party (because there's still some "effort" involved on the part of the sneaking party in sneaking but not in fighting the punny fellows)?

 

What effort is there to sneaking past a significantly inferior enemy? Also, what's the danger? What's the consequence for being spotted and heard? :D

You do have to take consequences into account for success/failure when employing such a philosophical stretching of circumstances.

[UpgrayeDD]

I said that my interest is not in making sure that whatever you say is wrong. In other words, if we're standing side-by-side, and you tell me "There's no way it's raining," and water is falling from clouds onto my head, I have no interest in proving myself superior to you in any way, but I'm going to feel compelled to point out the fact what I can observe (rain falling from the sky) seems to indicate that you are mistaken. It's entirely possible you could mean something else by it, like "You've gotta be kidding me," or maybe you muttered a thought aloud about it not raining in a specific location, and you didn't say the location part aloud. It's possible what was conveyed to me was not entirely clear on the specifics of your point. That's precisely why I question and present examples.

This has to be one of the most arrogant and pretentious things I've ever seen you write. Becuase of course you are the one whos always right oh great Lephys. Why can the lemmings around you not see your wisdom. And why is it ok for the great Lephys to question things and not I. Because when I do it I am impeding those who are considerate of everyone, but when you question and present examples its the clearly right thing and &%^$ everyone else who doesn't get it. Everytime I see you walk into every single thread on the board I should just give up because Lephys put down the knowledge.

[Amentep]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

 

So you'd be okay with a system that, for example, doesn't reward combat against weaker enemies at all, but still rewards stealth options?

 

So lets say a CR encounter 2 levels above the party gives the same XP to stealth and combat but a CR encounter 5 levels below the party only gives XP to the stealth party (because there's still some "effort" involved on the part of the sneaking party in sneaking but not in fighting the punny fellows)?

 

What effort is there to sneaking past a significantly inferior enemy? Also, what's the danger? What's the consequence for being spotted and heard? :D

You do have to take consequences into account for success/failure when employing such a philosophical stretching of circumstances.

 

Penalties to combat if caught sneaking plus the alerting of ALL monsters in the area to your presence (ruling out sneaking further even against more advanced foes, requiring retreat/failure of the objective or heavier combat resource investment than a combat path)?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Amentep