Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Hassat Hunter]

[large post; read it]

The easiest way would be not to tie finding area to quests... and why should it?

 

Objective-XP includes exploration, so finding that mill should give some XP regardless if there's a quest or not.

 

You didn't do/did the quest? You still get some for going out of the way and finding said location.

 

Same with dungeons. You could give some XP for clearing a level in any way and moving on. You don't even need to be sended there.

[IndiraLightfoot]

That is the best way to go, I think, as far as my experience as a game designer stretches (not that far, but still). Objective xp purely, and sometimes that happens to be part of quest xp trees (coz there will be a big web of them, trust me). PrimeJunta has some important points on objective xp, but if we take away the quest xp conundrum we have ourselves a winner, I reckon! 

[TRX850]

The easiest way would be not to tie finding area to quests... and why should it?

 

Objective-XP includes exploration, so finding that mill should give some XP regardless if there's a quest or not.

 

You didn't do/did the quest? You still get some for going out of the way and finding said location.

 

Same with dungeons. You could give some XP for clearing a level in any way and moving on. You don't even need to be sended there.

Not sure I see the logic in awarding XP for stumbling upon a windmill. I think the XP triggers need to be narrowed down a bit in this example.

 

But your comment about dungeons.....isn't that how it's currently done? You clear out a level of monsters and gain XP as you go?

 

We've somehow managed to stumble past the windmill and back to square one again.

[Hassat Hunter]

Why is it so wrong for a player to do whatever the hell he/she wants in their own game?

It is not. That's exactly what we advocate though. Players who can do what THEY want. Not being forced to do what the SYSTEM wants them.

Not sure why it's oppossed by the otehrs...

 

And obviously it's also for my game... I'm not getting a different PE than you guys.

What is the obsession with punishing someone who wants OPTIONS to play the game they paid for, the way they want to play it?

We aren't. We aren't punishing anyone. It's an open playing field for all.

 

However it raises an important question... why is removing combat XP a punishment? Why is making a good system a punishment? Why is making viable stealth punishing?

 

How exactly is allowing people to play how they want punishing them? Or forcing the game my way.

I'm not saying they should fight. Or stealth. Or diplomacy. I say... Do whatever the hell YOU want. And I want a system to make people be able to do that.

 

Why oppose that? Really?

[Fearabbit]

You might argue "but now avoiding combat is better than actually fighting!". Even if that were the case (and that largely depends on level design, loot and all kinds of unknown factors that we shouldn't speculate about), we'd be talking about a whole different level:

In the Combat XP system, fighting is better than sneaking because it gives you 100% of XP and loot vs. maybe 50% of XP and 50% of loot. In the Quest XP system, the worst scenario is that a combat-player loses a couple more healing potions or has to rest more often or needs to restock on ammunition, while 100% of XP and loot are still guaranteed. (While sneaking most likely will still give you LESS loot no matter how weird Gifted's and Helm's interpretation of "loot is not systemic" is.)

 

So this is what I meant when I said: You are not actively (and inherently) ruining anyone's experience by switching from Combat XP to Quest XP. You're not making any experience worse.

 

This still hasn't been adressed, by the way. I'll try to repeat it with better structure:

• If each action (killing, disarming, unlocking, ...) is rewarded XP, someone who does all of them gets 100% XP and 100% loot, while losing X% of his resources (potions etc.).
• In that case avoiding things is not preferable, because then you only get Y% XP and Z% loot, and the resources you kept can't make up for the XP loss (and most likely can't make up for the loss on loot either).
• If only the objectives are rewarded XP, someone who is very thorough STILL gets 100% XP and 100% loot while losing X% of his resources. It is still a very good way of getting through the dungeon.
• Someone who avoids things will get 100% XP and gets the same Z% loot as before, no resources used. This is much better for them than the scenario before!

Now the questions are:

1. What would have been better, keeping X% of your resources or getting Z% more loot? This can be evaluated by [Cost of used Resources] vs. [Gold Value of Missed Loot].
2. Is going from Combat XP to Quest XP making the experience worse for anybody? Does a group of players receive a disadvantage that wasn't there before?

 

My answers are:

1. This is highly dependent on the situation, but I'd think that ideally an enemy should always give you more loot than you used resources on him (if your party is at the right level for the dungeon), so fighting him is at least a tiny bit better than avoiding him. Saying that stealth is always better than combat in a Quest XP system implies that keeping your resources is always better than getting the loot, and I just don't see that.

2. The player who does everything takes the same time to get the same amount of XP and the same amount of loot while using the same amount of resources and having the same amount of fun. I can't see any disadvantage that was created by the new system.

 

(Edited for clarification)

Edited January 18, 2013 by Fearabbit

[Hassat Hunter]

Not sure I see the logic in awarding XP for stumbling upon a windmill. I think the XP triggers need to be narrowed down a bit in this example.

Exploration XP.

The windmill is off the beaten path, surrounded by orcs.

In BG, some maps can be completely avoided. Surerly you can get "exploration XP" for them... what does it matter what that exploration portraits.

But your comment about dungeons.....isn't that how it's currently done? You clear out a level of monsters and gain XP as you go?

Yeah, but now you just need to "clear it" not "clear it out"...

 

And if the Infinite Dungeon is 15 levels of fighting with no NPC's, quests, a rich story etc. it's a waste of developertime. We can play Torchlight III or Diablo III instead. That's not what PE is about.

So I surely doubt it will be a 15 layered Bloodlines sewer slog.

We've somehow managed to stumble past the windmill and back to square one again.

No, we're not... :?

[TRX850]

why is removing combat XP a punishment?

Because you are now penalized by the inclusion of other play styles encroaching on your preferred play style.

 

If I want to play a solo fighter from start to finish, why should I be awarded less that 100% of the kills?

 

In trying to normalize all play styles, it in effect waters down all of them. Which is unacceptable.

[PrimeJunta]

And if the Infinite Dungeon is 15 levels of fighting with no NPC's, quests, a rich story etc. it's a waste of developertime. We can play Torchlight III or Diablo III instead. That's not what PE is about.

So I surely doubt it will be a 15 layered Bloodlines sewer slog.

 

I hope not. That would be a let-down. I'm hoping it'd be more like Quarmall from the Swords tales...

[Helm]

What a strange trip this topic has been. I think I'm about done with it. Now all you guys have to do is convince JE Sawyer.

 

Here's another one of my cat. She finds the whole discussion very bizarre and thinks we'd be better off just waiting for the game to be released and seeing how it turns out. Also, meow, and more toona.

 

Cute cat. Really.

 

But don't tell him you don't like combat xp or he'll hate you forever.

[Hassat Hunter]

Because you are now penalized by the inclusion of other play styles encroaching on your preferred play style.

What is penalising you from your playstyle if it stays EXACTLY the same. But there are 2 variations added for other people?

Wouldn't it be very egoistic to claim your playstyle needs to become prefered?

What exactly is endangering you from using your playstyle if you like it most if 2 others are in you like less, and hence don't use?

 

Enlighten me...

If I want to play a solo fighter from start to finish, why should I be awarded less that 100% of the kills?

You'd still get more XP, since you don't have to share your XP amongst the group. And get the full XP of your playstyle (it's not like you get less XP for being a fighter, that would be unfair).

 

Basically what you're saying is "if I am a fighter, I want more XP than the rogue and diplomat."

But this game is made for more playstyles than just your fighter, so (sadly for you) that wont happen.

 

In trying to normalize all play styles, it in effect waters down all of them. Which is unacceptable.

No, it isn't.

Stealth players can stealth. And have stealth skills and options and questpaths do so.

Fighters can fight. And have fighting skills and options and questpaths to do so.

Diplomats can work things out. And have diplomat skills and options and questpaths to do so.

 

Why is any of them watered down if all are viable? Why does the fighter need to be more viable for the system to work (it wouldn't be better...). Why is supporting proper stealth and diplomacy unlike the IE games inherrently making fighters watered down?

 

I need some reasons, since honestly, I don't understand them...

[IndiraLightfoot]

PrimeJunta: ubercute cat! As a proud cat owner myself I see that you have good taste in cats...

 

Helm: I laughed out loud when I read "don't tell him you don't like combat xp or he'll hate you forever"!    

 

EDIT: Helm: "Don't tell him you don't like easy stealth xp, else a cruel fate of fur and shredding claws awaits"

Edited January 18, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Helm]

 

EDIT: Helm: "Don't tell him you don't like easy stealth xp, else a cruel fate of fur and shredding claws awaits"

:p

 

[TRX850]

 

Because you are now penalized by the inclusion of other play styles encroaching on your preferred play style.

What is penalising you from your playstyle if it stays EXACTLY the same. But there are 2 variations added for other people?

Wouldn't it be very egoistic to claim your playstyle needs to become prefered?

What exactly is endangering you from using your playstyle if you like it most if 2 others are in you like less, and hence don't use?

 

Enlighten me...

>If I want to play a solo fighter from start to finish, why should I be awarded less that 100% of the kills?

You'd still get more XP, since you don't have to share your XP amongst the group. And get the full XP of your playstyle (it's not like you get less XP for being a fighter, that would be unfair).

 

Basically what you're saying is "if I am a fighter, I want more XP than the rogue and diplomat."

But this game is made for more playstyles than just your fighter, so (sadly for you) that wont happen.

 

In trying to normalize all play styles, it in effect waters down all of them. Which is unacceptable.

No, it isn't.

Stealth players can stealth. And have stealth skills and options and questpaths do so.

Fighters can fight. And have fighting skills and options and questpaths to do so.

Diplomats can work things out. And have diplomat skills and options and questpaths to do so.

 

Why is any of them watered down if all are viable? Why does the fighter need to be more viable for the system to work (it wouldn't be better...). Why is supporting proper stealth and diplomacy unlike the IE games inherrently making fighters watered down?

 

I need some reasons, since honestly, I don't understand them...

 

 

In my own home, where I live, with my computer, and the RPG game I just bought, I am engaged in a playthrough as a solo fighter. In this playthrough, my preferred adventuring style is combat heavy. I've decided that on this playthrough, I'm not too bothered about sneaking or talking my way out of trouble. In this playthrough, I've decided I want to front up and pummel the living crap out of any bad guy in between me and the end game. So in this playthrough, combat is the preferred play style. If I kill a hundred orcs in their filthy little orc camp, I want XP for 100 orcs, not 75% of the XP or some arbitrary value based on completing that quest. See?

 

Now if I teamed up with a rogue on another playthrough, she would handle lockpicking, trapfinding, diplomacy maybe, and definitely all the backstabbing. The play style for my fighter is still combat heavy, and every time I kill something, the party shares in 100% of that kill XP. Every time the rogue averts disaster by disarming a trap, or some pretty fast talking that means all the difference in the upcoming battle, we'd also share 100% of those XP rewards. The rogue isn't punished because someone else in the party has a different play style to hers. She can still stand shoulder to shoulder with me and fight like a champ, and again, we'd share 100% of the kill XP.

 

This is the way I see it working, which is by and large, how it used to work. Again, if I'm put in a situation where my party's fighter is denied XP for additional kills during a quest, then I call BS. Same thing if my rogue is denied XP for backstabbing some hobgoblin shmuck who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Where is my XP?

 

I agree it *is* possible to have the best of both worlds, or however many worlds we're talking about here. Some of the earlier Quest-XP examples from different people may have been confusing, but please, let's be clear, killing 100 orcs should equal 100% of the XP, and not some watered down % because it wasn't *exactly* part of the current quest.

[Lephys]

Current quest design involves only 1 choice: Kill the things and get XP, or don't kill the things and get XP.

 

Hmm... let's make that quest more complex, and throw in a diplomacy option (it involves diplomacy, and handles the situation... that doesn't mean it takes 1 second and involves the simplistic "Let's not fight" dialogue option.). This also gives XP, because it involves spending time and resources (possibly going other places, talking to other people, finding out other information, acquiring other items) that wouldn't have been spent had you simply opted to fight (there'd be absolutely no issue to handle anymore, so no reason to go talk and acquire these things.)

 

How is this ANY different from having one optional combat-only quest, and one optional diplomacy-only quest, EXCEPT that you can't do them both? And if the problem is that you can't do them both, then your issue is really with mutually exclusive options.

 

What if you had a quest/objective that had 2 methods of handling it: Stealth, or Diplomacy? Would you insist that it isn't fair because there's no combat XP available? Probably not.

 

So it's just optional XP that happens to be tied together. IF you fight when you can, you ALWAYS get XP. If you don't, then the game's not designed well.

 

How does that not make sense? IF you think there's a problem with non-combat things granting XP, no matter what, then you simply don't want them to even be options. Because, why would you want someone to be ABLE to get past a fight without fighting (that they can never go back and fight) and not progress in any way? And if it's because "combat is always more complex than non-combat," then how do you account for poison and cutting ropes to drop things on your foes? Or how do you account for a Wizard casting one AOE spell in 4 seconds and killing 5 things, instead of a swordsman chopping and dodging away at them for 2 minutes until each one dies?

 

The reasoning just doesn't hold up. There's always an adjustment to be made to make the "always" bit false. What if you're Frodo and Sam, trying to get through Mordor to Mount Doom? Well, the game has to prevent you from just fighting everything in sight, because everything in sight means THOUSANDS of orcs and trolls and whatnot. So, should you be able to sneak through and avoid all that combat and still progress? Should each of those orcs and trolls provide combat XP, even though showing yourself means death (the game waits 'til you die in combat rather than instantly saying "You were spotted, GAME OVER!", but it's mathematically impossible to survive)? If it doesn't tell you you're dead, and they actually provide XP and loot (because they always should), then aren't you going to be mad that the game is so "unbalanced" that you're being deprived all that XP and loot, and the non-combat path is being rewarded?

 

That would just be silly. Times when combattable things are within your reach but combat with them is never a viable option are times when you don't get XP for killing (because you're "artificially" prevented from killing, and therefore barred from that XP).

 

In an objective-based system, killing orcs and trolls in Mordor wouldn't be an objective. Problem solved. You CAN kill them, but since you already don't have a reason to, you now don't have a player-override reason to ("I know this would be insanity, but if I can manage to somehow kill even just ONE of these things, I'll get like 100 more XP!").

[Lephys]

I agree it *is* possible to have the best of both worlds, or however many worlds we're talking about here. Some of the earlier Quest-XP examples from different people may have been confusing, but please, let's be clear, killing 100 orcs should equal 100% of the XP, and not some watered down % because it wasn't *exactly* part of the current quest.

 

 

If you have to get past all 100 orcs to get any XP, and you fight 50 of them, then sneak past the last 50, and you get 10,000 XP for completing "Get through the orc-filled pass," then how do you define "additional" kills? In addition to what? You just got 5,000 XP for killing orcs, and 5,000 XP for sneaking, successfully past orcs (I'm not advocating this as a good quest/objective-options setup... I'm merely illustrating a point about perspective on XP rewards.) If you kill only 1 orc, and you sneak past the other 99, then you got 100 XP for killing an orc, and 9900 XP for sneaking successfully past a boatload of orcs (which is probably a lot harder than just sneaking past 1, if you've designed the game well. OR we could all just assume it's impossible to make the number of foes a factor in stealth if we don't want to be reasonable.)

 

No matter what you do in that situation, you're getting 100XP per orc killed. If you sneak past them all, THEN go back and kill them all, you just lost 10,000 sneaking XP and gained 10,000 kill XP. You never get gipped for your kills, and you never get gipped for your sneaking. You only get XP = to how much sneaking you did, and you only get XP = to how many kills you made. Again, the only way there is to be upset with this is if you just plain think that combat should be the ONLY thing in the game that nets you XP.

 

What is the problem? You're only encouraged to sneak IF it's easier than combat (which really depends on current equipment, level, combat skills, player combat prowess, etc., as it relates to your stealth skills and such.) Unless you just have certain checkpoints at which you're magically bumped up to a statically-coded level and given a certain set of skills and equipment, I'm pretty sure there'll be variance in the combat abilities of different players' parties that affect whether or not killing the orcs or sneaking past them would be easiest.

 

NOT TO MENTION you still probably get more loot if you kill all the orcs. So, 10,000 EXP + any amount of extra loot/gold, as opposed to just 10,000XP.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

If I kill half the orcs, but have to retreat wounded, and head back to town to heal up, and some lady wants her basement cleared of rats, and some girl wants her cat rescued from a tree, (oh and btw, I'm a cat person too, so nothing against the furry fellas), and some assassin ambushes me and I'm forced to fight, then the XP I would have gotten from killing half the orcs might mean the difference between levelling up and not levelling up before the assassin was part of the equation.

 

I'm not advocating that combat is the only play style that counts, it's just easier to use combat in the example given.

 

 

Take the above example, but this time I'm a rogue who wants nothing to do with fighting (it's such a dirty habit!)

 

I sneak past half the orcs, but dang, I'm discovered! I stab one in the bollocks before running away back to town, angry with myself at being spotted (and having sullied my dagger with orc bollocks), then some crazy assassin picks a fight with me and I'm forced to deal with him. But wait, I didn't get any XP for sneaking past 50 orcs because the quest trigger wasn't triggered at exactly the right spot. And I agree that it's always going to be troublesome trying to quantify a good stealth reward.

 

What if, on the other hand, that while I was sneaking past those first 50 orcs, I encountered a few deadly traps and was able to disarm them, and I picked a few locked chests while they were standing *right next to me*, but that wasn't enough to gain any XP before heading back to town.

 

I just know there is a way to combine both of these reward schemes without the perception that you're being duped. I just don't think we've seen any examples that are absolutely clear, because, well, it's too complicated to take every adventuring factor into account when we don't really know what we're getting.

[Lephys]

^ All that tells us is "Adjust the number of orcs, then test again."

 

So, my point is, that isn't the system's fault. It isn't a flaw inherent to not-awarding-XP-every-single-time-you-ever-kill-something-in-the-whole-game, it's a flaw in the allocation of objective boundaries.

 

What if you just adjust all the factors so that you can't run away? What if, once you're detected, the entrance is blocked off, and you either have to kill all the remaining orcs and get to your objective "past all the orcs," OR be really, really stealthy and sneak past them all.

 

I know it seems different, but think about it... how is that different from the dragon example? Instead of 100 orcs there, there's a big tough dragon, who's as hard as 100 orcs. You get him to 80%, but you run out of health, so you flee. Except, imagine he doesn't heal. But you didn't kill him. You didn't get any XP, but you never came back to kill him. Well, if you beat the game without ever coming back to kill/otherwise-get-past him, then that couldn't have been an objective that was integral to anything else you did after that, so it must've been a purely optional XP objective. So, you chose to get that, then changed your mind.

 

In other words, consider the 100 orcs a single challenge. If you can't fight through all 100 of them on your amount of health, then, again, we probably have a balance issue. The number 100, and how tough they are is dependent upon balancing.

 

Another way to look at it is that the purpose of the orcs (the reason they're even there, in the context of design) is not to be XP fountains, but to be an obstacle in getting through the pass. Last boss of the game... he might not give you XP, if beating him completes the game. Why? Because XP gain isn't the goal of the game.

 

Again, getting XP per kill makes sense from the "Every action should realistically earn you XP" standpoint. But, UNLESS you use that scheme, it is no longer required for sense to be made. If you want the 100 orcs to be completable in one fell-swoop, then you adjust them accordingly.

 

Because, if it's balanced properly, and you're able to take on however many orcs it is with the previous XP/level-up opportunities presented to you so far (you can only make a challenge SO balanced... someone could still attack a rat, stand there and let it bite them all day long until they get low on health, then say "Damn, gotta go back to town to heal" and never come back to fight that rat), then there's no difference between giving up on taking down ONE enemy and giving up on taking down 100.

 

If you can kill 5 orcs in 10 seconds (because of their difficulty) OR one orc in 10 seconds (because it's that tough), then why does it matter if the developers put in 5 easier orcs there, or one tough orc? Or what if they put in 1,000 orcs (regardless of how ridiculous that would be)? They would have to be easy enough to present the same challenge as the one tough orc. So, they'd each give .0000-something XP. At some point, the amount of experience you get relative to the challenge of the kills is going to be marginal (hence the 100 orcs in the original example being 100 by design, rather than 10 or 1.)

 

TL;DR... How could the same example be adjusted to address the problem? There are a great deal of factors at play in balancing.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

Because each time you defeat an orc, you're reducing the overall threat just a little bit. Doesn't matter whether you're a wizard, cipher, fighter, or rogue. The threat has been reduced.

 

You can't kill half a dragon and claim the same thing. An enemy removed from the battlefield reduces the overall threat, whether it's a single opponent, or one of many.

[Lephys]

^ Yeah. I apologize for the extreme inefficiency of my last post.

 

Here's the point my brain wouldn't quite actually get to *punches own brain in the face*...

 

That example only works in the context of complete isolation. You don't say "Hey, part of that dragon should give me XP!" when you are presented with the dragon. You understand that only successfully killing the whole dragon will grant you XP. If the game uses objective-only XP, then you'd know, up front, that only killing all 100 orcs would get you any XP. So, why should we reasonably feel the need to change the design when someone says "Hmm, I think I'll try to take on all 100 orcs... Oh no, I failed part of the way through! Better leave... Hmm, I'll just never go back and finish that orc band. Wait, I DIDN'T GET ANY XP FOR MY EFFORT?!"

 

See? It doesn't make any sense. What I'm getting at is, you can no more say "part of this combat challenge SHOULD, inherently, present me with XP because it required effort and involved accomplishment" than you could say "That dragon SHOULD'VE been 100 orcs, instead!" Because we're talking about design choices here. I mean, what makes an orc INHERENTLY need to give you XP, as compared to a rat, or a random villager?

 

I don't know how to say exactly what I'm trying to say. If you take a huge dragon fight in a game, and suddenly replace it with with 100 orcs instead, for the same XP once you kill them all, either the orcs are an inherently better design decision (because of how much combat effort should translate into XP how often), or a combat challenge as long as 100 orcs that only rewards you with XP at the end is acceptable. It can't be both ways. How much effort the death of a single enemy constitutes isn't a static value. Saying the dragon is fine and the orcs aren't would mean that having only ONE enemy in the entire game that took 50-hours to fight and never regenerated health would be totally fine, and you shouldn't get any XP until you reduce some threat.

 

Or, rather, if all fights in the game consisted of only 1 enemy per encounter, you wouldn't care how long they took or how many resources they required, and whether or not you had to give up halfway through all of them and never receive any experience because you never went back and completed them. Even though you'd wind up with exactly the same "problem." As long as it's 100 orcs, even if the rest of the game is exactly the same, it's wrong not to give XP for a portion of the encounter, no matter what, but if it's just 1 big enemy that's equally as tough and time-consuming, it's fine to never give any until the whole thing is done.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

There's a reason Challenge Ratings are used to define enemies though. A single dragon will undoubtedly have a much higher CR than each orc. And therefore there's a much higher risk of death, but a much higher reward if you defeat it. Orcs provide a much lower risk of death, and a lower reward for defeating one. The fact that you killed 100 orcs and received the same XP as killing a single dragon reflects the risk/reward element.

 

Now if you were to go out and kill 100 dragons on the other hand...

[Hassat Hunter]

You know you just gave a perfect example why stealth isn't automatically easier than combat, right?

 

In your  example the combat person only has 50 orcs to deal with. The stealthy person however got the same 100 orcs to try again.

 

Also, from what I hear there's about 12 or so levels in PE. From the way you make it sound it's like you level regarly. This isn't 150 levels Diablo.

Leveling up wont happen very frequent. So making points like "it makes the difference between a level up all the time" is a pretty non-existant thing in PE.

 

EDIT: Also, you should *REALLY* play Vampire: Bloodlines...

Edited January 19, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Helm]

EDIT: Also, you should *REALLY* play Vampire: Bloodlines...

I'd recommend that too, because it's a great game.

 

And also to see that objective/quest only xp works great in Bloodlines. A game that

1) is extremely linear,

2) is non-party based,

3) has no tactical combat,

4) and has hardly any special loot.

 

Which is quite the opposite of what PE is supposed to be.

[TRX850]

Hassat, we're all good guys here really. And while I do enjoy a healthy debate, I think it's time to reel this one in mate. As useful as these forums are, there's still a lot of confusion over these big issues, and I'd rather just discuss other aspects of the game with you guys in a lighthearted and ironic manner, and see what the devs provide in the next few updates.

 

I was thinking though, it'd be really interesting, and funny (and dangerous!) if we rounded up the "Usual Suspects" on these forums and were thrown into our own P:E "Think Tank". Office space with whiteboards and game rigs and PnP stuff and just go crazy for a month with ideas. Maybe a bit like OE, but without any restrictions.

 

That would be strange days indeed.

[Helm]

Current quest design involves only 1 choice: Kill the things and get XP, or don't kill the things and get XP.

Yup, you're right. Less choice. Because choosing is hard.

 

So remove the choice of engaging in combat or not, just make it a no-brainer.

[Heresiarch]

Never liked VTMB for discouraging combat approach. But on the whole a fixed reward for every encounter should walk well. Whether you 

1. kill 100 orcs or
2. kill 99 and let the last one run away or
3. just sneak by or 
4. kill 50 and sneak by 50

you still get the fixed amount of, say, 10,000 XP. That's the way it should be in a cRPG. In a general case every approach a player might choose is viable and not punishable by less XP. It's not less choice, it's simply fair reward.

 

Of course, that does not preclude you from getting quests whether killing is required (say, you have to eliminate monsters) and, hence, XP and monetary reward for each kill is ok. Neither does it mean that killing should always give XP. If your task was to talk a person into cooperation and you murdered him instead, you get 0 XP for failing the quest. If you have to sneak into a house undetected and murder a government official in a way that makes it look like an accident, you won't get any XP for charging in guns blazing and slaying everyone.