Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see a quest only based reward fundamentally flawed for two reasons. Firstly there are lots of us who grew up on classical RPG-s including BG who enjoyed the combat XP. Not everybody, but definitely a lot of us enjoyed this aspect and found it as a fundamental aspect of these old D&D based series. One reason – not exclusive - to visit every single room and cave of a dungeon is just to get a little more of that XP and the hope to find more loot on those corpses. And so the other reason is that sneaking past a foe would leave you in a quite unsatisfied state of mind: what did that creature had, which I may have missed to pick? Clearing a dungeon dry, is not that bad as you think, and is in no way grinding per se. Grinding, or its negative connotation rather applies to MMORPG-s where you ruin others experience by frequently revisiting dungeons and depriving others from the full experience. In a crpg this is not an issue.  Although a very different game, in Skyrim, I spend reading books in dungeons several hours, sometimes I spend a half a (real) day reading if I find many in a dungeon on shelves and then killing the next goblin is still fun. So no, in a CRPG the purpose of combat XP is not to level up as fast as possible, but to get the maximum enjoyment out of the game. So please leave the good old combat system alone, or make reasonable changes to is, and make up rewarding pacific elements parallel. Let everyone do what they want, you do not need to force people via mechanics. I somehow do understand Helm’s apocalyptical stature, because such “innovative” changes may lead to an unfortunate decline of the project. However I still see it in a way that combat XP is not yet out ruled. Hopefully I am right on this.


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason – not exclusive - to visit every single room and cave of a dungeon is just to get a little more of that XP and the hope to find more loot on those corpses. And so the other reason is that sneaking past a foe would leave you in a quite unsatisfied state of mind: what did that creature had, which I may have missed to pick?

A valid concern, but one not needed. Combat will still reward you with XP, quite often. It's been stated that dead enemies will provide loot. AND, thusly, if you sneak past enemies (whose deaths might not happen to give you XP, maybe, perchance, in some particular instance), then you're pretty much guaranteed to miss out on SOMEthing, at least.

 

Also, again, unless you only trudge through combat for the XP, nothing is preventing you from killing everything in an entire cave. It's not as if you LOSE XP by joyfully combating foes, exploring the areas/loot they were blocking, and taking what you can from them.

 

So, yes, IF combat never gives you XP, and sneaking always does, and sneaking is always available, and dead enemies don't ever produce loot (when P:E's design is complete), then we'll have a problem. But, only under such conditions is there a problem. Unfortunately, I think the Doomsday Assuminators have caused an unnecessary amount of panic on these forums by suggesting that all these conditions are inevitable, an inherent part of the system or officially announced context.

 

*sigh*. Such is internets. 8P

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I would like for the game to be good.

 

/thread

That might be a problem, since P:E won't have a moral-ometer. The game's "alignment" will really be dependent upon its choices and actions throughout its entirety. If it DECIDES to crash on you all the time, then maybe it's evil. But it could always later decide to stop crashing and begin functioning flawlessly. 8)

XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, of he who hates Baldur's Gate but loves Skyrim.

I love how you think that matters in any way.

 

Monte Cook also loves Skyrim. Does that stop him from being Monte Cook?

 

Not to mention that loving something doesn't mean you want to copy it, and disliking something doesn't mean you don't appreciate what it's trying to do.

 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but as the obsessive lorekeeper of all things Sawyer, one would assume you'd be aware that Josh has spoken of Baldur's Gate 1 with approval several times, yes? Which would imply that he didn't care for the more explicitly linear direction in which they took 2, in which case your argument that doesn't matter to PE's success is invalid anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a quest only based reward fundamentally flawed for two reasons. Firstly there are lots of us who grew up on classical RPG-s including BG who enjoyed the combat XP. Not everybody, but definitely a lot of us enjoyed this aspect and found it as a fundamental aspect of these old D&D based series. One reason – not exclusive - to visit every single room and cave of a dungeon is just to get a little more of that XP and the hope to find more loot on those corpses. And so the other reason is that sneaking past a foe would leave you in a quite unsatisfied state of mind: what did that creature had, which I may have missed to pick? Clearing a dungeon dry, is not that bad as you think, and is in no way grinding per se. Grinding, or its negative connotation rather applies to MMORPG-s where you ruin others experience by frequently revisiting dungeons and depriving others from the full experience. In a crpg this is not an issue. Although a very different game, in Skyrim, I spend reading books in dungeons several hours, sometimes I spend a half a (real) day reading if I find many in a dungeon on shelves and then killing the next goblin is still fun. So no, in a CRPG the purpose of combat XP is not to level up as fast as possible, but to get the maximum enjoyment out of the game. So please leave the good old combat system alone, or make reasonable changes to is, and make up rewarding pacific elements parallel. Let everyone do what they want, you do not need to force people via mechanics. I somehow do understand Helm’s apocalyptical stature, because such “innovative” changes may lead to an unfortunate decline of the project. However I still see it in a way that combat XP is not yet out ruled. Hopefully I am right on this.

 

 

If you need a number to go up to do something you already enjoy doing in a game, may I humbly suggest that you don't actually like doing it very much?

 

EDIT: My apologies for the multiple posts, by the way. I'm using my phone to type, and there doesn't seem to be a way to quote multiple people in the same post in the mobile version of the forum.

Edited by Ffordesoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 3 things THX seem to fall upon;

 

1) Objective-XP is only meant to remove degenerate gameplay.

Answer: No, it's not only for that purpose. It's to refine balance, reward actually progressing the game, allowing choices and pathways. It is to allow combat encounters to be buffed upper for higher difficulties and not give more XP. It's for not nerfing easy players on lower difficulties. It's to make stealth good. To make diplomacy good. To make combat good. That's why it is chosen. Not solely to not give XP for killing questgivers, as somehow most actually think... somehow.

 

2) Lets not change system A. Instead of fixining issues with A, we devise B. B is supposed to augment A to modify the result in a good fashion. Which then causes system C to reward appropriately.

Answer: Wouldn't it be easier and better to just augment A to work properly? The reputation system can be used for much much more than simply filling gaps in the XP-system. A system where every kill modifies reputation in some way would only lead to more degenerate gameplay (let's kill all those enemies to adjust my reputation. While that may work in Freelancer, it's not so good here). It would lead to extra balance worries (how many can we place not to turn the reputation system to hell). It would create issues with generating quests (slaying corrupted beasts for the Druids, or inner-clan traitors anyone). And so we can go on.

Instead of making a potential perfect reputation system ruined by that, let's just use it for it's designated function, okay? Not saying that I wont agree, as stated before, that killing key opponents can indeed affect it.

 

3) Evil = Murdering everyone.

If OE can only make evil that, that would be a massive FAIL on their account. Personally I don't think that would be evil players only option and so desperately need to add XP to killing to make that viable instead of choosing out of the many MANY options presented to you being truly evil. Hopefully more in a manipulative way than a pure "I kill you lolly and murder you baby" kind of evil.

Personally, I am not that worried this will happen just fine...

^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quest only xp does not reward you for your prefered playstyle or for making the hardest and most demading decisions, it only rewards you for crossing an imaginary line and nothing else. It makes combat in a combat based game a pointless chore which is avoided as much as possible. Stealth games use quest only xp and what do you do? You avoid combat as much as possible. Wow, that was real hard to figure out.

 

But now Project Eternity is a stealth game with a substantial stealth ability. If you choose to sneak and are caught, then you engage in pointless combat. If you choose to fight, then you uh, just engage in the pointless combat.

 

Wow, who would have ever figured that out when he saw the Kickstarter.

If you need a number to go up to do something you already enjoy doing in a game, may I humbly suggest that you don't actually like doing it very much?

 

EDIT: My apologies for the multiple posts, by the way. I'm using my phone to type, and there doesn't seem to be a way to quote multiple people in the same post in the mobile version of the forum.

Well, maybe we should remove quest xp for all sidequests too. Or will you only do quests if they reward you with xp?

 

Of course you would do all of the sidequests just for "phun", because only the content matters and not the numbers that go up (as you wrote in another thread).

Edited by Helm

Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quest only xp does not reward you for your prefered playstyle or for making the hardest and most demading decisions, it only rewards you for crossing an imaginary line and nothing else. It makes combat in a combat based game a pointless chore which is avoided as much as possible. Stealth games use quest only xp and what do you do? You avoid combat as much as possible. Wow, that was real hard to figure out.

 

But now Project Eternity is a stealth game with a substantial stealth ability. If you choose to sneak and are caught, then you engage in pointless combat. If you choose to fight, then you uh, just engage in the pointless combat.

 

Wow, who would have ever figured that out when he saw the Kickstarter.

 

 

If you need a number to go up to do something you already enjoy doing in a game, may I humbly suggest that you don't actually like doing it very much?

 

EDIT: My apologies for the multiple posts, by the way. I'm using my phone to type, and there doesn't seem to be a way to quote multiple people in the same post in the mobile version of the forum.

Well, maybe we should remove quest xp for all sidequests too. Or will you only do quests if they reward you with xp?

 

Of course you would do all of the sidequests just for "phun", because only the content matters and not the numbers that go up (as you wrote in another thread).

Yes, I would do all of the sidequests just for fun. That's why I do sidequests. And play games. For fun.

 

Would I be fine with the removal of all XP? Sure, if there was a better progression system. I've never heard of one that would work as well as XP, but I'd try it.

 

You know they're called "experience points," right? Meaning that they are an abstract measure of what your character learned from his or her experiences, AKA the content.

 

In other words, even the name of the mechanic is an implicit condemnation of the "make numbers go up" mentality.

 

By the way, combat is part of the content. If it weren't, it wouldn't be in the game. Why spend time on it at all if you can just sneak past everything? That's just bad design.

 

...He says, knowing that Helm is going to miss the point and follow up with something like, "So you agree Josh Sawyer who hates BG2 and loves Skyrim and punishes wise decisions by allowing players to enjoy themselves is a bad designer, then?"

 

Also worth noting? All challenges in games are about crossing an imaginary line. You go to a place, you solve a puzzle, you fight some dudes, you fight a boss, you get the ball to the goal - it's all just crossing imaginary lines over and over again.

 

To be fairer to you than you're undoubtedly going to be to me, I do vaguely understand what you're talking about. If overcoming a challenge feels like crossing an imaginary line, it's ultimately a failure on the developer's part.

 

Josh Sawyer knows this. Josh Sawyer has said it outright many times. It's not his fault that you're ignoring his actual words on the matter - even the ones you've cherry-picked, which is pretty astonishing - because he didn't like a game you liked and liked a game you didn't like.

 

One more thing: it's possible to love a game without wanting to make one like it, and it's possible to dislike a game while understanding what people love about it. I love Tetris, but I would have no interest whatsoever in making Tetris 2. Conversely, World Of Warcraft does very little for me, but I get why the people who love it love it.

 

Alright, have at me. Really tear this one apart, okay? I want to see just how tortured your logic can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quest only xp does not reward you for your prefered playstyle or for making the hardest and most demading decisions, it only rewards you for crossing an imaginary line and nothing else.

Guys, only awarding XP when certain things die would mean that XP never gets awarded when things die. That would mean people who don't prefer combat in all possible scenarios might get gipped!

 

In the quest for equality amongst playstyles, the solution is obvious: Make sure killing always gets more rewards, always. u_u

 

Yeah, that would make you make the hard decisions. Like "Play my preferred playstyle, even though it doesn't always involve killing, and therefore I'll always lose out."

 

That IS a tough choice. Too bad the combat-lovers won't ever get to make it. That seems a little unfair. Shouldn't they get tough choices, too?

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I be fine with the removal of all XP? Sure, if there was a better progression system. I've never heard of one that would work as well as XP, but I'd try it.

Call of Cthulhu. Your numbers go up by learning something. You learn something by studying, being taught, or practice in the field. Every time one of these things happens you roll d100; if you beat your current skill level, you add d4 to d8 points (sometimes even more) to your skill. IMO works better than XP in PnP gaming where you have a GM to prevent players from gaming the system. Would be tricky to translate to a cRPG without ending up in Oblivion-ville.

 

The Storyteller system awards character points for plot progression directly without the intermediary of XP. So instead of adventure -> XP -> gain level -> points to spend improving your character, you get adventure -> points. Higher-level skills cost more character points to buy. At higher levels this ends up feeling a lot like an XP system though because you need to collect several character points to materially improve even a single skill. Works very well, but with a very different feel -- in CoC you progress organically based on your actions; in Storyteller you progress based on explicit choices about where to put those character points. VtM:B used Storyteller as the basis.

 

Personally I prefer XP-less and classless systems. Class, XP, and level just add unnecessary complexity without adding depth; in PnP it's also a bit of a chore to level up characters, especially if they level up at different times (and no, my players don't usually do this as homework even if they mean to -- some of them have lives). Awarding character points directly cuts out this complication while retaining all of the freedom and depth players have to develop their characters. In practice a Storyteller-like system with additional awards to specific skills for study/practice works best. IMO as always.

 

And yes, I do realize that doing away with classes, levels, and XP would have been too radical a departure from P:E's IE roots that it was very unlikely to start with, so I ain't complaining that they kept them. If a trivial change to the way XP is awarded causes this much anxiety, I can only imagine the howls if they had tried to do something genuinely innovative.

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I see a quest only based reward fundamentally flawed for two reasons. Firstly there are lots of us who grew up on classical RPG-s including BG who enjoyed the combat XP. Not everybody, but definitely a lot of us enjoyed this aspect and found it as a fundamental aspect of these old D&D based series. One reason – not exclusive - to visit every single room and cave of a dungeon is just to get a little more of that XP and the hope to find more loot on those corpses. And so the other reason is that sneaking past a foe would leave you in a quite unsatisfied state of mind: what did that creature had, which I may have missed to pick? Clearing a dungeon dry, is not that bad as you think, and is in no way grinding per se. Grinding, or its negative connotation rather applies to MMORPG-s where you ruin others experience by frequently revisiting dungeons and depriving others from the full experience. In a crpg this is not an issue. Although a very different game, in Skyrim, I spend reading books in dungeons several hours, sometimes I spend a half a (real) day reading if I find many in a dungeon on shelves and then killing the next goblin is still fun. So no, in a CRPG the purpose of combat XP is not to level up as fast as possible, but to get the maximum enjoyment out of the game. So please leave the good old combat system alone, or make reasonable changes to is, and make up rewarding pacific elements parallel. Let everyone do what they want, you do not need to force people via mechanics. I somehow do understand Helm’s apocalyptical stature, because such “innovative” changes may lead to an unfortunate decline of the project. However I still see it in a way that combat XP is not yet out ruled. Hopefully I am right on this.

 

If you need a number to go up to do something you already enjoy doing in a game, may I humbly suggest that you don't actually like doing it very much?

 

EDIT: My apologies for the multiple posts, by the way. I'm using my phone to type, and there doesn't seem to be a way to quote multiple people in the same post in the mobile version of the forum.

 

What I was saying is that advancing in an in detail measured manner is a source of fun in itself. Other fun factors are added up, these are really not contradicting each other. A flat quest XP does not reward the “how” aspect. It only rewards the “did it or not” factor which is quite binary and boring. There is the fact that same things can be done in a better and worse way. This hugely improves the game and the replay-ability of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, yes, IF combat never gives you XP, and sneaking always does, and sneaking is always available, and dead enemies don't ever produce loot (when P:E's design is complete), then we'll have a problem. But, only under such conditions is there a problem. Unfortunately, I think the Doomsday Assuminators have caused an unnecessary amount of panic on these forums by suggesting that all these conditions are inevitable, an inherent part of the system or officially announced context.

 

*sigh*. Such is internets. 8P

Actually if enemies do not give XP AND do not drop loot would solve everything concerning “degenerate” game play, whatever that means. Then of course you wouldn’t have the urge to kill any foe just for fun. But that, – mostly the latter -, would be terrible in itself. Too far away from classical RPGs and BG style games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, yes, IF combat never gives you XP, and sneaking always does, and sneaking is always available, and dead enemies don't ever produce loot (when P:E's design is complete), then we'll have a problem. But, only under such conditions is there a problem. Unfortunately, I think the Doomsday Assuminators have caused an unnecessary amount of panic on these forums by suggesting that all these conditions are inevitable, an inherent part of the system or officially announced context.

 

*sigh*. Such is internets. 8P

Actually if enemies do not give XP AND do not drop loot would solve everything concerning “degenerate” game play, whatever that means. Then of course you wouldn’t have the urge to kill any foe just for fun. But that, – mostly the latter -, would be terrible in itself. Too far away from classical RPGs and BG style games.

 

*siiiiiiiigh*...

 

The urge to kill something for fun isn't degenerate. How many times do I have to say this? I WANT people to kill things for fun. I also want them to get stuff for killing things (sometimes.) That's the nature of a game.

 

I don't even care if you gain XP for fun. If that's what's fun to you, then awesome. Demanding that the game allow you more ways in which to gain XP, because you like gaining XP? THAT'S degenerate. If I could somehow get through dialogue by casting a fireball on the person instead of talking to them, that would be a degenerate design. It's not because I like fireballs, or because I don't like dialogue. It's because it makes no frigging sense. The game's having me do something that doesn't make any sense. It's already established that you must speak words to people, and they must speak words back, for dialogue to work. But, OH! It just turns out you can cast fireball at them, because fireball's fun, and the game skips to the end of dialogue.

 

You've just put in the most non-sensical "skip dialogue" option in the universe. Does that make any sense? The game ALLOWING you to cast fireball in the stead of participating in an entire bout of dialogue is degenerate. It doesn't even matter if you take advantage of it or not. That's why I don't even prefer to point out degenerate behavior, but, rather, degenerate design.

 

But, if you want to talk about degenerate behavior, it's behavior that's only CONDITIONALLY degenerate.

 

But, you know, everyone loves to hop into a discussion out of nowhere and say "Oh, I guess you hate that I like to use a trackball instead of a mouse... I guess I'm a "degenerate!". I like swiss cheese instead of cheddar? Is that degenerate too? I can't be-LIEVE you people and your "degenerate behavior" that I keep fabricating my own meaning for and shoving down your throats! You should be ashamed of yourselves! Forcing me to claim that you're claiming that my preferences and the way I enjoy a game are wrong!"

 

*shrug*

 

All I can do is try. You can lead a horse to water... 8\

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, yes, IF combat never gives you XP, and sneaking always does, and sneaking is always available, and dead enemies don't ever produce loot (when P:E's design is complete), then we'll have a problem. But, only under such conditions is there a problem. Unfortunately, I think the Doomsday Assuminators have caused an unnecessary amount of panic on these forums by suggesting that all these conditions are inevitable, an inherent part of the system or officially announced context.

 

*sigh*. Such is internets. 8P

Actually if enemies do not give XP AND do not drop loot would solve everything concerning “degenerate” game play, whatever that means. Then of course you wouldn’t have the urge to kill any foe just for fun. But that, – mostly the latter -, would be terrible in itself. Too far away from classical RPGs and BG style games.

 

 

*siiiiiiiigh*...

 

The urge to kill something for fun isn't degenerate. How many times do I have to say this? I WANT people to kill things for fun. I also want them to get stuff for killing things (sometimes.) That's the nature of a game.

 

I don't even care if you gain XP for fun. If that's what's fun to you, then awesome. Demanding that the game allow you more ways in which to gain XP, because you like gaining XP? THAT'S degenerate. If I could somehow get through dialogue by casting a fireball on the person instead of talking to them, that would be a degenerate design. It's not because I like fireballs, or because I don't like dialogue. It's because it makes no frigging sense. The game's having me do something that doesn't make any sense. It's already established that you must speak words to people, and they must speak words back, for dialogue to work. But, OH! It just turns out you can cast fireball at them, because fireball's fun, and the game skips to the end of dialogue.

 

You've just put in the most non-sensical "skip dialogue" option in the universe. Does that make any sense? The game ALLOWING you to cast fireball in the stead of participating in an entire bout of dialogue is degenerate. It doesn't even matter if you take advantage of it or not. That's why I don't even prefer to point out degenerate behavior, but, rather, degenerate design.

 

But, if you want to talk about degenerate behavior, it's behavior that's only CONDITIONALLY degenerate.

 

But, you know, everyone loves to hop into a discussion out of nowhere and say "Oh, I guess you hate that I like to use a trackball instead of a mouse... I guess I'm a "degenerate!". I like swiss cheese instead of cheddar? Is that degenerate too? I can't be-LIEVE you people and your "degenerate behavior" that I keep fabricating my own meaning for and shoving down your throats! You should be ashamed of yourselves! Forcing me to claim that you're claiming that my preferences and the way I enjoy a game are wrong!"

 

*shrug*

 

All I can do is try. You can lead a horse to water... 8\

I know you mean that. But you admit that only sometimes. However I say, that the promise of fun should always lurk there in each potential combat. Removing XP and mob loot makes it less likely and achieves something like “aaaa, goblins again, that’s boring, lets sneak past them”. At the end you will end up in an adventure type game where the essence is in the story and in game choices/decisions. I’d say that’s not the aspect which made the mentioned CRPGS so attractive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quest only xp does not reward you for your prefered playstyle or for making the hardest and most demading decisions, it only rewards you for crossing an imaginary line and nothing else. It makes combat in a combat based game a pointless chore which is avoided as much as possible. Stealth games use quest only xp and what do you do? You avoid combat as much as possible. Wow, that was real hard to figure out.

 

But now Project Eternity is a stealth game with a substantial stealth ability. If you choose to sneak and are caught, then you engage in pointless combat. If you choose to fight, then you uh, just engage in the pointless combat.

 

Wow, who would have ever figured that out when he saw the Kickstarter.

 

If you need a number to go up to do something you already enjoy doing in a game, may I humbly suggest that you don't actually like doing it very much?

 

EDIT: My apologies for the multiple posts, by the way. I'm using my phone to type, and there doesn't seem to be a way to quote multiple people in the same post in the mobile version of the forum.

Well, maybe we should remove quest xp for all sidequests too. Or will you only do quests if they reward you with xp?

 

Of course you would do all of the sidequests just for "phun", because only the content matters and not the numbers that go up (as you wrote in another thread).

Yes, I would do all of the sidequests just for fun. That's why I do sidequests. And play games. For fun.

 

Would I be fine with the removal of all XP? Sure, if there was a better progression system. I've never heard of one that would work as well as XP, but I'd try it.

 

[ loads of BS ]

 

Alright, have at me. Really tear this one apart, okay? I want to see just how tortured your logic can get.

LOL

 

No XP for sidequests? Are you kidding me? You seem to have completly missed the point of what an RPG is. The pivotal point of an RPG is building your character - how are you going to do that if you don't get xp for sidequesting? My god.

 

What you say is how the publishers think, and that is why RPGs are dead. :facepalm: Go and play Skyrim or some kind of action RPG and don't ever come back, seriously.

 

And there is no reason for you to insult me just because you have no idea what an RPG actually is, or because you don't like what distuinguishes an RPG.

Edited by Helm

Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quest only xp does not reward you for your prefered playstyle or for making the hardest and most demading decisions, it only rewards you for crossing an imaginary line and nothing else.

Guys, only awarding XP when certain things die would mean that XP never gets awarded when things die. That would mean people who don't prefer combat in all possible scenarios might get gipped!

 

In the quest for equality amongst playstyles, the solution is obvious: Make sure killing always gets more rewards, always. u_u

 

Yeah, that would make you make the hard decisions. Like "Play my preferred playstyle, even though it doesn't always involve killing, and therefore I'll always lose out."

 

That IS a tough choice. Too bad the combat-lovers won't ever get to make it. That seems a little unfair. Shouldn't they get tough choices, too?

Who said that we only want combat xp and no quest xp?

 

For the 100th time, we want BOTH.

Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My excuses for not reading 21 pages of 4 reasonable guys and one stubborn guy arguing the same points over and over. I bet there was some good stuff in there, but it will have been lost to the noise.

 

I would like to remind you all that fighting the trolls isn't useful. Their arguments fall on themselves, and if Obsidian are reading they will see this just as well as you. Let their flawed arguments speak for themselves and concern yourself with making valid arguments for your cause rather than demonstrating the faults in their cause. Otherwise we end up with too much noise for anyone from Obsidian to reasonably spend time going over our discussions. Make your points and move along.

 

That said: While the game might (for some players) be combat oriented, characters shouldn't be seeking unnecessary combat. Characters should want to spend their energy where it matters, getting 'waylaid by enemies and must defend yourself' should evoke a reaction of 'oh no'. Because it should mostly be an exertion of energy that your party wanted to use for something useful.

 

Also: Such encounters should only occur when they are genuinely dangerous encounters. Otherwise, whoever wants to rob you would see they are no match, and simply wouldn't engage. These things should never become rote grind, because no thief or brigand would reasonably make the decision to die at the hands of an experienced adventuring party. Perhaps some chaos mages would. :)

 

Grinding for XP should be impossible. When you've already killed 10 bears, killing another won't teach you much. To get Experience, one must challenge oneself. One learns mostly through failing at doing new things, and learning how to avoid failure in the future. One learns very little by succeeding. An exciting XP system would reflect this.

 

Back on topic of sneak:

Don't forget that sneaking isn't mutually exclusive to combat. Yes, a failed sneak should often put one in a tactically disadvantageous situation. However, a successful sneak can either help you avoid combat, or help you win combat by putting you in a tactically extra advantageous situation!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be rewarded for overcoming challenges. Gaining xp for overcoming challenges plays a pivitol role in any RPG. In a tactical combat based RPG combat is a challenge and you should be rewarded for it. This is the way it was done in the IE games and it should stay this way!

 

But sadly being rewarded for overcoming challnges is being thrown straight out the window in PE and has been replaced with a "cross the imaginary line for xp" system. Every PnP system rewards you for overcoming challenges, D&D, Pathfinder and even GURPS. But not PE, nope.

Quest only xp is utter BS in an IE style RPG. It works great for stealth games, but not for combat based games. I can only hope that Josh and Tim finally realise that their streamlining of the xp system is the wrong way to go. They will only succeed in alienating the fans of the IE games and nothing else.

 

I can't blame them for trying though, but it just won't work as they plan. I can only hope that they realise this during development.

Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

 

No XP for sidequests? Are you kidding me? You seem to have completly missed the point of what an RPG is. The pivotal point of an RPG is building your character - how are you going to do that if you don't get xp for sidequesting? My god.

 

Um...there's a lot of other systems than awarding XP; completing sidequests could still net you something that would be of worth to your character (titles, reputation, guild/faction status) without giving you a +1 to hit because you leveled.

 

Not saying that's what I want, but I could see it being done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to get better at stealth or diplomacy or magic or any other skills, you still need to level up.  Items will do some of that for you, but are not a replacement for levelling up.

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to get better at stealth or diplomacy or magic or any other skills, you still need to level up.  Items will do some of that for you, but are not a replacement for levelling up.

 

xp isn't the only way to increase your skills though.  You could create a system where there is no levels, and completing quests netted you new traits/perks that modified your base skills (which, as there are no levels, never change) based on how you completed the quest or met objectives.

 

This is just my perspective but I think that we're a little hung up on XP/stats in computer RPGs as opposed to the roleplaying (usually choice & consequences).  Your mileage may vary, but I think this is why I tend to be neutral on whether XP for kills or XP for quests is "better".  I'm more interested in is the system that we have balanced and works for the game than is it superior/inferior to other models.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying that's what I want, but I could see it being done.

I wonder why.... :)

Edited by Helm

Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want XP to work seamlessly in the background so I don't have to think about it all the time.  I really do want to play the game and become immersed and enjoy the story.  But I also want to take care of my character, first and foremost.  It's not a race to level up to maximum level, I get that.  As long as there is enough content to keep the challenges.....challenging, I'll be ok with that. But we also need to be treated as adults and allowed the freedom to develop our own character arc that's in keeping with our play style.

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...