Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Amentep]

Then the game should award XP for key skills that allow those play styles to shine.

 

Disarmed a deadly trap? Award XP.

 

Negotiated your way through a grueling stand-off? Award XP.

 

It's so, so simple, yet people seem to hate the idea of being rewarded for what they're good at.

The problem - as I see it - is that this breaks down when you go to "sneaking past" people multiple times and also the problem of getting double XP (sneak past then return and kill for more xp).

 

The former and latter can be fixed situationally; you could give each "entity" an XP pool that can only be taken once, for example. But it seems that Obsidian wants to fix it at the upper level of their design. Whether it'll work or not will remain to be seen. I'm pretty certain their intent is not to alter balance so that fighting is undesirable (or unviable).

[Valorian]

One last example I'll mention is something that happens to many players.  You take on a quest, and get part way through, only to find it's way too difficult for your current level.  So you head off somewhere else and complete a couple of easier quests to get your levels up, then return to the original quest.  Hassat would have you believe that that's a "sloppy" play style.  And according to his design, you wouldn't get the partial XP for doing the early part of the quest.  Which by anyone else's standard is just plain unacceptable.

 

Yes. Why would we not get XP for partially eliminating threats (i.e. killing enemies)?

 

They'll respond - because you haven't completed an "objective"!

 

Then I ask... why would we get any XP at all until we complete the one and only objective that really matters - the main quest that wraps up the entire story and the game?

[Lephys]

You see the problem with objective xp is that it is an inherently static system.  It simply cannot mold or adapt itself to a players whims as it only rewards players for whatever the predefined objectives actually are.

So we should go with the extremely dynamic system of kill xp? Aka "The death of something that was alive = XP"?

 

How does this not make sense? I'm sorry, but I find it incomprehensible that this somehow doesn't make sense. Every single time I'm told my point is flawed nonsense, I recheck it. Again and again. And I keep coming to the same conclusion, that no, as far as I'm possibly capable of telling, it does hold up in the court of logic. And I didn't invent logic. I had no hand in logic's creation or form.

 

All "Kill XP" is is an Objective XP system in which killing is ALWAYS an objective.

 

So, yes, all other design decisions aside, objective XP doesn't cause a problem.

 

And, for the record, you don't have to HATE kill XP systems to think that an objective-based XP system is a good idea. Why does EVERYthing always turn into a friggin' binary argument? "OBVIOUSLY if you are pointing out any merit to 1, you must DESPISE 0. I'm gonna go ahead and ignore all the merit you pointed out about 1, and defend the attack on 0 that I'm pretending you're making. u_u"

Edited February 12, 2013 by Lephys

[Ganrich]

Unfortunately, giving XP for disarming traps is broken at best in a party based game (see baldurs gate). All it means is players will ensure they have a rogue to deal with them. Combat XP gives combat characters XP. Trap XP give "all" characters XP. This means combat characters get both combat and trap xp, and sneaky characters get trap only. It still leaves a gap between the 2 play styles in terms of XP. The only way to fix this is to only give XP to the player if PC disarms the trap. Which could work, but I can't recall it having been implemented that way before. However I could just be having memory issues.

 

You could also make all the rogue-like npcs bad at traps, but that is no fun, and leads to issues like BG2 had with crappy thieves.

 

Also, a stealth character being forced to find all the traps in the dungeon to get their XP sounds about as fun as watching paint dry. To each thei own, I guess. I would play a stealth character as a pseudo combat oriented character nine times out of ten, though.

 

Where objective XP lets the sneaky character avoid some scenarios to get the objective done their way. Trap XP just forces them to deal with an arbitrary issue while completing said quests. It doesn't work as well for that play style, all in all.

[Razsius]

 

Then the game should award XP for key skills that allow those play styles to shine.

 

Disarmed a deadly trap? Award XP.

 

Negotiated your way through a grueling stand-off? Award XP.

 

It's so, so simple, yet people seem to hate the idea of being rewarded for what they're good at.

The problem - as I see it - is that this breaks down when you go to "sneaking past" people multiple times and also the problem of getting double XP (sneak past then return and kill for more xp).

 

The former and latter can be fixed situationally; you could give each "entity" an XP pool that can only be taken once, for example. But it seems that Obsidian wants to fix it at the upper level of their design. Whether it'll work or not will remain to be seen. I'm pretty certain their intent is not to alter balance so that fighting is undesirable (or unviable).

 

Sneak xp is perhaps the hardest to award without running into a munchkin mentality.  The best I got is to have it awarded through the quest (or "objective") for every bandit or w/e you have sneaked past gets tied into the end reward then close off the area (I know people hate this but it more then makes sense.  If you rob a place they'd naturally increase security for future robbery attempts).  That solution btw is straight from VtM: B so I don't know why it wouldn't be viable.  You got rewarded extra xp for not killing the humans in the museum.  I always ended up sneaking all the way through so i'd say it worked.  Also factions/reputation, going back and killing them might not be a viable option as far as npc x or faction x is concerned.

 

@Lephys

 

 

All "Kill XP" is is an Objective XP system in which killing is ALWAYS an objective.

 

Yes, yes it is and it should be perfectly fine in a combat focused game.  I don't know what else to tell you Lephys I really don't.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Razsius

[TRX850]

Unfortunately, giving XP for disarming traps is broken at best in a party based game (see baldurs gate). All it means is players will ensure they have a rogue to deal with them. Combat XP gives combat characters XP. Trap XP give "all" characters XP. This means combat characters get both combat and trap xp, and sneaky characters get trap only. It still leaves a gap between the 2 play styles in terms of XP. The only way to fix this is to only give XP to the player if PC disarms the trap. Which could work, but I can't recall it having been implemented that way before. However I could just be having memory issues.

 

You could also make all the rogue-like npcs bad at traps, but that is no fun, and leads to issues like BG2 had with crappy thieves.

 

Also, a stealth character being forced to find all the traps in the dungeon to get their XP sounds about as fun as watching paint dry. To each thei own, I guess. I would play a stealth character as a pseudo combat oriented character nine times out of ten, though.

 

Where objective XP lets the sneaky character avoid some scenarios to get the objective done their way. Trap XP just forces them to deal with an arbitrary issue while completing said quests. It doesn't work as well for that play style, all in all.

 

Saying that the old system is "broken at best" doesn't mean it can't be fixed in P:E.

 

If lockpicking and disarming traps was part of an objective, would that change a player's behaviour?

 

Seriously, no single character can excel at every skill or playstyle in the game.  That's why you spread the load across your party so everyone has a chance to shine.

 

Award XP for all skill checks that  overcome non-trivial threats  or gain non-trivial items/lore.  I've said it so many times in this thread. 

[PrimeJunta]

/me checks in

 

This thread still going?

 

/me flips through a couple of pages

 

Oh.

 

Carry on...

 

PS. Raszius is a class act. That avi is unfair, though. Who's gonna argue with Keldorn?

 

PPS. Ceterum censeo, delendam sunt pugna punctorum experientiae.

[Lephys]

@Lephys

 

 

 

All "Kill XP" is is an Objective XP system in which killing is ALWAYS an objective.

 

Yes, yes it is and it should be perfectly fine in a combat focused game.  I don't know what else to tell you Lephys I really don't.

 

 

It IS perfectly fine. And so is making the objective more than just single kills in SOME situations, in a game focused on combat as a means of accomplishing other objectives. What's that everyone keeps loving to say so much? Oh yes...

 

Combat doesn't exist in a vacuum. In a game in which, what... roughly 70-80% of the combat scenarios are unavoidable and integral to progression, why should combat that doesn't have anything to do with any quest, accomplishment, objective, or story scenario be specifically accommodated with XP rewards?

 

It's no different, NO different, than your time spent running around exploring not rewarding you with anything, UNLESS you explore where there's a chest or some loot. The sheer act of running your party about doesn't get you anything. If it actually accomplishes something, then it gets you something. You couldn't just will yourself to the chest, and open it. You had to run there. So, running is actually rewarded, SOMETIMES.

 

What problem is it actually going to cause if you kill ONE bandit, then run off and don't get any XP? "OMG, I was like 92 levels low when I went back to kill the other 9 bandits, because I didn't get the 10% of that combat encounter's worth of XP from that one bandit! Curses!"

 

It is quantifiably insignificant, unless you just around the entire game, killing random individual enemies and never accomplishing anything. "Well, those guys were guarding that cave, and I just NEVER went in there, because I never wanted to kill all of them. I only wanted to kill like 2 of them. But gall-durnit! I want my friggin' XP for those 2! But, even if there's more stuff to kill and get XP for inside the cave, I don't want to go in there."

 

That's a paradox. You can't want combat XP, BECAUSE you don't want combat XP. If each bandit from the group of 10 gives you 10XP, and you've killed 2 of them, you get 20 XP. Awesome. Do you HATE the other 80XP? You enjoy combat for the sake of combat, and or combat for the sake of XP gain, but you don't want that other 80? You hate it? Is that it? Not to mention the cave they're guarding, which might contain more combat, and/or treasure and loot that help you better partake in more combat.

 

The only time you'd be adamant about getting your 20 XP is if you wanted the other 80, as well. If you're just combatting things for maximum XP, you're going to kill all 10 bandits anyway!

 

You're getting a "combat-focused RPG" mixed up with a Diablo-type game. Diablo's gameplay and progression is literally centered around killing. The IE games, and P:E, for that matter, are about a story, that heavily involves killing. They are not about the killing itself. The only reason the killing is important is because of the story elements. Why are those bandits there? What are they guarding? How will this affect other things, the killing of these bandits?

 

That's the best thing I can say, I think. Combat doesn't exist in a vacuum. People who don't care about the 100XP for a group of 10 bandits and have no other desire for combat aren't going to demand 20XP for 2 bandits they HAPPENED to kill. People who want to kill all 10 bandits ARE worried about getting all the XP possible.

 

The only time I can think of that being an actually viable thing would be if the bandits were strewn about the world. One was on the east coast, the other on the west coast, one in a mountain to the north, another in the middle of the ocean to the south. And you had to kill all 10 to get any XP. That would be a terrible implementation. STILL wouldn't be the system's fault. It would be the fault of the person who decided to place those bandits leagues apart, rather than designating a collective group of bandits, all in one spot, as a combat objective.

[Ffordesoon]

I don't understand. It felt like we were getting somewhere for a second, but then the old binary "quest XP vs. kill XP" mentality rose up again. The system we're talking about here is not even dependent on quests or kills. It's dependent on overcoming challenges.

 

Did nobody here actually play New Vegas? You were rewarded with XP and perks for completing skill challenges, including killing a certain number of creatures. Yes, there was also kill XP, but that was a holdover from Fallout 3.

 

The point is, Sawyer has said that he wants skill challenges similar to those in New Vegas to be in PE. Disarm a bunch of traps, get rewarded with XP. Fight a bunch of dudes, get rewarded with XP. Read a bunch of books, get rewarded with XP. Sneak past a bunch of guys, get rewarded with XP. The idea is for the game to reward the things you like doing with XP. How is this any different philosophically from a per-kill XP system? It's the same amount of XP, but parceled out in lump sums.

 

Remember also that this XP gain is an objective in itself; it's kept entirely separate from quests. If you kill five guys and run away without ever completing the quest attached to the fight, that counts toward your kill total regardless. If you encounter enemies in between locations, and you kill them, that counts toward your kill total. Kill one innocent dude for looking at you funny, and that's counted as a kill too. Kill a hundred guys, and you get a hundred guys' worth of XP. Repeat the feat, and you get another hundred guys' worth.

 

And I know the objection there is, "Well, what if one of the guys you kill is a crazy-difficult boss, huh? Surely you don't want to be deprived of XP for vanquishing him?"

 

No, because there could be a separate XP bonus for beating him, plus he counts toward your kill total.

 

New Vegas had its own set of issues, it's true, but the only thing that system does differently from a per-kill system is avoid the headache of having to plan out how much XP each individual enemy is worth, thereby making it much easier to balance. It also serves as a way to prevent people from killing villagers and the like solely to level up, without taking a moral stance on the killing of villagers. You can kill villagers and be a bad guy while earning XP, but you have to prove you like killing villagers.

[TRX850]

@Lephys, you're hung up on the idea that players will only partake in 10% of every side-quest they accept, and ignore the other 90% for some irrational reason.

 

I think it originated from an example of how a side-quest could be delayed for any number of valid reasons; injury requiring rest, too hard, change of heart, side-tracked by another quest, and so on.

 

Whenever an objective is only partially met, it will likely be for a valid reason.  No one would willingly gimp every objective in the game, because they'd never receive any objective/quest XP.

 

If P:E was 100% linear in design, it would pretty much force players to complete all non-optional objectives before progressing, but I think we are all expecting a mostly open world like BG1&2, so you have to allow for partially completed quests/objectives.

Edited February 12, 2013 by TRX850

[Ganrich]

 

Unfortunately, giving XP for disarming traps is broken at best in a party based game (see baldurs gate). All it means is players will ensure they have a rogue to deal with them. Combat XP gives combat characters XP. Trap XP give "all" characters XP. This means combat characters get both combat and trap xp, and sneaky characters get trap only. It still leaves a gap between the 2 play styles in terms of XP. The only way to fix this is to only give XP to the player if PC disarms the trap. Which could work, but I can't recall it having been implemented that way before. However I could just be having memory issues.

You could also make all the rogue-like npcs bad at traps, but that is no fun, and leads to issues like BG2 had with crappy thieves.

Also, a stealth character being forced to find all the traps in the dungeon to get their XP sounds about as fun as watching paint dry. To each thei own, I guess. I would play a stealth character as a pseudo combat oriented character nine times out of ten, though.

Where objective XP lets the sneaky character avoid some scenarios to get the objective done their way. Trap XP just forces them to deal with an arbitrary issue while completing said quests. It doesn't work as well for that play style, all in all.

 

Saying that the old system is "broken at best" doesn't mean it can't be fixed in P:E.

 

If lockpicking and disarming traps was part of an objective, would that change a player's behaviour?

 

Seriously, no single character can excel at every skill or playstyle in the game.  That's why you spread the load across your party so everyone has a chance to shine.

 

Award XP for all skill checks that  overcome non-trivial threats  or gain non-trivial items/lore.  I've said it so many times in this thread. 

Well, every party can disarm traps as long as they have 1 character in there party out of 6 with that skill. This issue isn't present in games where there is no party. However, there aren't many games without a party that implement traps. The issue still remains that a character that focuses on combat can still obtain the XP from traps where the stealthy character is forced into combat to get comat XP. The traps are likely going to be in both players way, both will have to deal with it, and more than likely both will see XP from traps. It means by end game the combat character will still be sitting on more total xp than the stealth character. That is the fundamental issue.

 

I am not against another solution, mind you. Trap disarming isn't the answer. Especially since every play style would likely have to deal with traps, and most likely get that XP.

[TRX850]

Well, every party can disarm traps as long as they have 1 character in there party out of 6 with that skill. This issue isn't present in games where there is no party. However, there aren't many games without a party that implement traps. The issue still remains that a character that focuses on combat can still obtain the XP from traps where the stealthy character is forced into combat to get comat XP. The traps are likely going to be in both players way, both will have to deal with it, and more than likely both will see XP from traps. It means by end game the combat character will still be sitting on more total xp than the stealth character. That is the fundamental issue.

 

I am not against another solution, mind you. Trap disarming isn't the answer. Especially since every play style would likely have to deal with traps, and most likely get that XP.

 

Disarming traps is not the extent of a rogue class though.  They have an entire rainbow of skills that can net them XP rewards.  There's no reason they couldn't equal another character's XP by utilizing all their skills, even if they avoided some of the combat.

 

Edit:

 

And besides, what's to stop a stealthy character from engaging in ranged combat or magic during an encounter?

Edited February 12, 2013 by TRX850

[TRX850]

Well folks.....<in the voice of Vinnie Jones>....."It's been emotional."

[Lephys]

@Lephys, you're hung up on the idea that players will only partake in 10% of every side-quest they accept, and ignore the other 90% for some irrational reason.

I beg to differ. All I did was point out (point out, mind you, not invent) that it is the only scenario in which getting 10 XP per enemy as opposed to only getting 100XP for each 10 enemies has any kind of significant detriment. Those who brought up that as a reason for per-kill XP instead of objective-based XP are the ones who are hung up on it. That's why this thread is 25 pages instead of like 6.

 

Someone says "What about when people partially complete things?", to which not just me responds "Well, let's evaluate that. See, it actually doesn't cause a problem, unless the player is voluntarily ridiculous." And people just glance over that, then respond as if our evaluation of the proposed problem scenario was somehow nonsensical and arbitrary.

 

TRX, I value your input on these forums. I really do. It is typically more extensive and valuable than the average post. So, I really don't understand why you would do this. As one person to another. I'm "hung up" on examples I didn't even make, then took the time to evaluate?

 

*sigh*...

 

I think I'm out of this one, on that note, as I quite literally do not know what else to say.

[TRX850]

 

@Lephys, you're hung up on the idea that players will only partake in 10% of every side-quest they accept, and ignore the other 90% for some irrational reason.

I beg to differ. All I did was point out (point out, mind you, not invent) that it is the only scenario in which getting 10 XP per enemy as opposed to only getting 100XP for each 10 enemies has any kind of significant detriment. Those who brought up that as a reason for per-kill XP instead of objective-based XP are the ones who are hung up on it. That's why this thread is 25 pages instead of like 6.

 

Someone says "What about when people partially complete things?", to which not just me responds "Well, let's evaluate that. See, it actually doesn't cause a problem, unless the player is voluntarily ridiculous." And people just glance over that, then respond as if our evaluation of the proposed problem scenario was somehow nonsensical and arbitrary.

 

TRX, I value your input on these forums. I really do. It is typically more extensive and valuable than the average post. So, I really don't understand why you would do this. As one person to another. I'm "hung up" on examples I didn't even make, then took the time to evaluate?

 

*sigh*...

 

I think I'm out of this one, on that note, as I quite literally do not know what else to say.

 

I meant the *player* would be irrational, not you.

 

Don't make me have to play the Scrubs "Guy Love" video.

 

Because I *will*....

Edited February 12, 2013 by TRX850

[Hassat Hunter]

 

I was going to write a lengthy response to Hassat Hunter, answering his questions, but there's not much more to say that hasn't already been said.

Sure do it anyway, since you might get a revelation answering many. Or we get more insights how you come to some weird deductions.

You take on a quest, and get part way through, only to find it's way too difficult for your current level.  So you head off somewhere else and complete a couple of easier quests to get your levels up, then return to the original quest.  Hassat would have you believe that that's a "sloppy" play style.  And according to his design, you wouldn't get the partial XP for doing the early part of the quest.  Which by anyone else's standard is just plain unacceptable.

That's not what you said. You said they never returned. NEVER. Not later. NEVER. That's sloppy.
Still, the point does stand, why *should* you be rewarded for those first 25% rather than much later on when you finished it all. To use your beloved "threat", what good does killing 2 orcs in a 50 orc party does besieging the town. Why should you be rewarded for it, instead of when they're all down and everyone is saved. Or nothing at all if you fail miserably and everyone dies. Why should you be rewarded with XP if you let the orcs kill everyone in the town you were supposed to defend. What good did it do anyone you killed them after the fact?

The same goes for similar "change of heart" examples.  You get part way through a quest only to learn that the quest-giver is not who they appear to be, so you might refuse to complete the quest and abandon it and/or kill the quest-giver.

Again, Obsidian aren't freaking idiots. If they add such a twist, the outcome will take it into accont and act and reward accordingly.
Sjeesh, 25+ pages later and you still think OE are RPG newbie's who never designed a quest in their life, and who add twists which will just break it? Really?
This is something different from killing the questgiver for the heck of it. Which obviously shouldn't be rewarded. And don't dare say "but that's the evil path" since you know as well as I that ain't true.

if the XP system is gimped towards a play style that doesn't suit a lot of players

XP system mainly for people who do combat... or XP system for people who do combat, do stealth or do diplomacy.
Tell me which of the 2 suits more players than the other.
(Hint in case it's not obvious, the second)

All the fearmongering in some people just because more playertypes or gamestyles are allowed is simply insane. Yes, your playstyle is still there. Still intact. Still viable. But so are others. Why the heck do you need to freak out over that? Is it that bad others play how they want? Is it really that bad other people enjoy the game a little different than you? What harm does it do you that you wont allow it?

 

EDIT:

As for your position of "awarding XP for doing stuff fixes everything I not only point to older posts, but games like BG2 and KOTOR2. For looking from a designer point you seem to did do very little resource in what worked and didn't work in previous game. And farming every little mine for XP being a problem can't possible sneak past anyone playing KOTOR2. And how it wrecks a potential good level design.

 

It's a concept of "learn of past mistakes or you're bound to make them again"... sticking one's head in the sand, ignoring those past findings and claiming it fixes everything, well... I would definitely not suggest making that a path to follow... designer or not...

Edited February 13, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[TRX850]

Hassat, I believe we ultimately want the same thing. But all you're doing is arguing against a simple solution that (in combination with new fixes and design considerations) will provide for you rather than frustrate you.  No matter what I say, you are determined to get angry and believe that I'm going to ruin your experience. So it's best we just drop it and move on.  See you on the forums.

[Bitula]

I really fail to see why it is fun to sneak past foes (btw with a large party), missing all the fun a combat may offer. You really would enjoy this people? OK, I never played games where the goal is to avoid encounters via sneak, just games where you use sneak to take your enemy by surprise, but I simply cannot imagine that sneaking for the sole purpose of avoiding a combat is fun. So anyone care to explain what is so fun about it?

[IndiraLightfoot]

Bitula: Good examples for party-based RPGs are few, but the excitement lies in the risk of getting detected and the chaos that would ensue. I mean Josh wrote in the Dishonored mechanics-thread in this subforum that it wouldn't be as sophisticated a system as in Dishonored, but I think if it's done right, it would certainly get my juices going. Then again, I am easily led astray by sneaking in computer games. Also, many of us coming from a PnP-background sorta roleplay our characters more. We aren't just threshing through like in an arcade game. And in PnP, sneak attempts are classic and extremely fun!

 

However, I think having an entire party attempting to sneak past enemies that success will be really hard and detections be a dime a dozen.

[TrashMan]

Because the dragon will regenerate his stamina back when you leave, just like the player. Will rest too, probably.

 

The 5 monsters will stay dead.

 

What if... respawns?

What if... plague strikes?

What if... earthquake?

 

You still improved your skills by killing them.

 

There shouldn't be raspawns because this means unlimited loot and/or xp for the player so it's an inherently negative machanic, unless it's a MMO.

 

 

No, I won't accept the "learn by doing" xp for hitting the dragon, because this is not the spiritual successor to TES and I wouldn't like the silliness that springs from such a system in PE.

 

So are you saying you DON'T get experience by fighting a dragon?

You only learn something if you actually kill it?

That's not how learning works.

 

And before you bash on learn-by-doing, try to rememeber that Elder

Scrolls is not the ONLY LBD possible implementation out there.

There are good ones - like Jagged Alliance 2.

 

 

 

 

It only works like that... if the world follows your twisted logic. But that's highly unlikely.

 

The irony.

So not getting XP if you don't kill all enemies is stupid and unrealistic...but not getting XP for fighting, but not killing a dragon is OK?

Some serious double-standards and broken logic here...

 

 

 

It affects loot. In IE games it is very easy to take loot during combat.

A rogue taking a strong stamina potion from a corpse could change the battle.

 

Dissallow looting during battle. Or penalize it heavily.

Every enemy with a brain would have a go at the idiot rummaging trough a body.

Edited February 13, 2013 by TrashMan

[Ffordesoon]

I really fail to see why it is fun to sneak past foes (btw with a large party), missing all the fun a combat may offer. You really would enjoy this people? OK, I never played games where the goal is to avoid encounters via sneak, just games where you use sneak to take your enemy by surprise, but I simply cannot imagine that sneaking for the sole purpose of avoiding a combat is fun. So anyone care to explain what is so fun about it?

Well, it depends on the implementation, but the enjoyable element of sneaking past enemies is pretty easy to quantify. It's because you feel like you're getting one over on your enemies, who are usually physically superior, through your wits alone.

 

And, because you don't kill your enemies, there's a sense that you haven't taken the easy way out by directly engaging them, which adds to the feeling of superiority over them. It's like, "I could have killed you, but I chose not to, and you'll go back to your family tonight and never even know I was here. Hee hee hee, aren't I kind to spare your life?"

 

That's why I like it, anyway.

[Valorian]

 

 

Because the dragon will regenerate his stamina back when you leave, just like the player. Will rest too, probably.

 

The 5 monsters will stay dead.

 

What if... respawns?

What if... plague strikes?

What if... earthquake?

 

You still improved your skills by killing them.

 

There shouldn't be raspawns because this means unlimited loot and/or xp for the player so it's an inherently negative machanic, unless it's a MMO.

 

 

No, I won't accept the "learn by doing" xp for hitting the dragon, because this is not the spiritual successor to TES and I wouldn't like the silliness that springs from such a system in PE.

 

So are you saying you DON'T get experience by fighting a dragon?

You only learn something if you actually kill it?

That's not how learning works.

 

And before you bash on learn-by-doing, try to rememeber that Elder

Scrolls is not the ONLY LBD possible implementation out there.

 

There are good ones - like Jagged Alliance 2.

Exactly. You only get better at killing when you kill something. It's called abstraction. There's no need to further atomize kill XP.

 

 

Have you noticed the irony, guys? The people who argued in favor of learn by doing, in this thread, are against kill XP. And you know why they perform this suicide of logic? Because they think they're making a point against kill XP, somehow.

[Bitula]

Bitula: Good examples for party-based RPGs are few, but the excitement lies in the risk of getting detected and the chaos that would ensue. I mean Josh wrote in the Dishonored mechanics-thread in this subforum that it wouldn't be as sophisticated a system as in Dishonored, but I think if it's done right, it would certainly get my juices going. Then again, I am easily led astray by sneaking in computer games. Also, many of us coming from a PnP-background sorta roleplay our characters more. We aren't just threshing through like in an arcade game. And in PnP, sneak attempts are classic and extremely fun!

 

However, I think having an entire party attempting to sneak past enemies that success will be really hard and detections be a dime a dozen.

I’ve always found RPing in a single player computer game far-fetched and sort of lame. Also I seem to lack this sort of excitement “feel superior by non-engagement” described by Ffordesoon, lol. Well, I hope it is just some sort of flavor and not a major part of the game. I don’t remember any such stuff in BG.

[Hassat Hunter]

Have you noticed the irony, guys? The people who argued in favor of learn by doing, in this thread, are against kill XP. And you know why they perform this suicide of logic? Because they think they're making a point against kill XP, somehow.

Ehm, who?

 

Cause I don't think anyone fits the description unless you seriously mis-read some stuff.

Like taking "why should killing 10 orcs of 20 give XP but not 50% of 1 dragon" to mean 'I want learn by doing'

 

Then again, it's Valorian... :/

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well isn't this thread a lovely cesspool of negativity?

 

Anyway, I want challenge based XP. Group of bandits are encountered, you get XP for pacifying them, with a myriad of possible options to do so available. That way the player still gets a XP reward for completing difficult random encounters not tied to an established objective, but won't be at a disadvantage if they don't always choose combat to deal with them. Sound fair enough?