Cause and Effect

[TRX850]

Could I tempt you to grudgingly see the point behind why I think quest-only xp tends to serve rational character behaviour better than irrational behaviour?

 

Which is why, in my view, kill xp is needed to accommodate a range of historically-unpopular-yet-valid play styles, provided there is a robust reputation/faction system that handles the consequences.

[Lephys]

Oh, I assure you I see it. I won't say "I always know and understand EVERYTHING you've ever said, ever!", haha. I'm only human. But, I mean, you've got very good points. Always. It's why I so much enjoy discussing things with you, even in the midst of disagreement, . I would say that "tends" is the key word, though. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to discriminate. It doesn't inherently discriminate, I don't think. I have yet to see a way in which it does. Every example has been dependent upon more conditions than simply the method of designating certain things as XP-awarding, and other things as not (kills included).

 

It is a valid concern. Very much so. But not a valid, inherent truth. The concern can (and should) still be addressed, though. That is what I was talking about in all my "but then it's a matter of balancing" talk. Haha.

 

I would simply specify the exact nature of that need for kill XP as 2 separate parts:

 

1) Aggressive objective options to kill things (when available) should produce XP, just like any other options toward objectives (whenever available.)

 

2) The aggressive objective options should be just as plentiful (however many there are and whatever they may be) as the non-aggressive (non-combat) objective options. There should be no trends, in the scope of an entire playthrough of the game, towards one single playstyle or another.

 

Does that suffice? Because, as you've said, sometimes the option to kill should be there, but it shouldn't necessarily reward XP (CR 0 example.)

 

Of course, the only concern I'll add with the decision on who you should be able to kill (regardless of XP) is that certain people HAVE to be integral to the story. If some guy is the only person who can lead you through the mountain, and you need to get through the mountain (no matter what path you take on the other side), then killing him would essentially end your playthrough. And basically being a murderous crazyman in his presence should cause him to flee in terror at the sight of you (thus preventing him from ever leading you through the mountain, no matter what you do, and prematurely ending your playthrough.)

 

That's a very simplistic example, but the control of some things is ALWAYS going to be in the hands of others, and you're only going to be able to go on SO much of a murdering rampage before they know of your actions. People who need things constructive things done (no matter HOW they're done) are not going to trust people who do purely unconstructive things all day long to do what they need.

 

Reasonability always produces limitations, is all.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

Yes, I was thinking about how to handle plot characters this morning. I think IE games come up with a message that you've been a dolt and killed someone integral to the story and must now reload. I can't remember how or why I (accidentally?) made that happen before, but it is indeed a design consideration.  Maybe that will be one of my next big forum posts.

 

Edit:

 

One option could be to make those encounters/meetings into scripted events? So the plot character walks in, says his lines, then walks off or leads the way until you've gone from A to B or whatever.

Edited January 31, 2013 by TRX850

[TRX850]

Oh, I assure you I see it. I won't say "I always know and understand EVERYTHING you've ever said, ever!", haha. I'm only human. But, I mean, you've got very good points. Always. It's why I so much enjoy discussing things with you, even in the midst of disagreement, .

 

I spend way too much time on these forums, and sometimes I get tired or muddled and don't always accurately articulate my point the first time round. But I do believe we, and others here, are ultimately problem solvers.

[Lephys]

I spend way too much time on these forums, and sometimes I get tired or muddled and don't always accurately articulate my point the first time round. But I do believe we, and others here, are ultimately problem solvers.

Oh, it's totally understandable. It just happens. I work at a computer, and I often have to wait on lots of other computers/machines/printers/tape-storage-units as part of my job, so I have a lot of downtime (and these forums are like a bug-zapper in that downtime.) But, yeah, I do the same thing. We're just human. If only we had telepathy...

 

Also, it's really just a matter of perspective. I mean, if we're discussing to solve problems, then the more misunderstandings we accidentally create, the more problems we have to solve! We're creating jobs... volunteer jobs, but still jobs! 8D

[JFSOCC]

Myself and others have given examples of chaotic or evil play style that comes under the irrational banner though. A paladin would be irrational if he thought he should kill everything. A blackguard would be in keeping with character.  All along I have been talking about "character" and not simply the player. You are not your character. You play the role of another person.

 

Part of the problem is when lawful or good characters grab extra XP by killing a few random things because they know there are no consequences, or at least there weren't in previous IE games. That's where a behaviour system should come into it.

 

But if a chaotic or evil character kills a few random things, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if those creatures were part of another side-quest or not. That's irrelevant to the "character".

 

I think maybe the confusion lies between differentiating player from character. Maybe?

 

Edit:

 

Btw, I did mention powergaming in one of the other threads, but I fear it became lost in the sea of white noise that is now the P:E forums.

which is why NO alignments is the way to go.

Btw, I'm not sure if powergaming should be rewarded, because it's pretty much always meta-game thinking that causes players to powergame. I think eliminating those options forces people into a role-playing mindset, exactly because they CAN'T do everything they want to.

Edited January 31, 2013 by JFSOCC

[TRX850]

 

which is why NO alignments is the way to go.

Btw, I'm not sure if powergaming should be rewarded, because it's pretty much always meta-game thinking that causes players to powergame. I think eliminating those options forces people into a role-playing mindset, exactly because they CAN'T do everything they want to.

 

I use the term "alignment" as a guide for character intent, moral compass, and behaviour, similar to older systems. And yes, I'm looking forward to doing away with alignment in P:E. It was always part of the reason for past imbalances.

 

Powergaming is a valid play style for players who have already played the game several times and know the storyline. I would encourage players to "do it properly" and roleplay as different characters to get the most out of the game, before deciding to powergame. There's no reason to inhibit their choice on this though. It's an option where they know it's not strictly roleplaying before making that decision.

[Raithe]

One issue with Reputation as a mechanic, is if you have multiple reputations with the assoreted factions, is there also going to be one "Universal" reputation for how famous/notable your character might be?

 

Also, as has been mentioned, does it make sense that your actions are immediately known and recognised throughout the whole world? Is there going to be some sense of reputation gains/losses only in the immediate area, but then over time the stories of your actions spreads out and those reputation modifiers spread further?  So if you move fast enough, will you outrun your reputation?

 

Heh, I could amost see one faction spreading a false story about you to change your reputation in an area and the potential side-quest that would look into it and reveal the truth.. You don't have to take the quest, but then you'll have to deal with the Reputation shift....

[TRX850]

Yes, it's an interesting topic, reputation. I suppose each time you complete a side-quest, it stores that info so that eventually various factions will know about you.

 

Some factions might know of your deeds immediately, then start spreading word. Others may take a while. You might even achieve things that no one ever witnesses and therefore never hears about, unless the party tells someone about it.

 

And I like the idea of false stories too. It gives the feeling that you're not always in control. You may have shown mercy to that raiding half-orc tribe and let them go, but someone somewhere has spread the rumour that you killed them in cold blood.

 

But complications are good. It makes for memorable roleplaying.

[Helm]

I completely agree with the OP.

 

A reputation system should be included instead of completely removing "Cause and Effect" and "Choice and Consequence" and in turn making practically any choice you make have the same "generic" outcome. A reputation system would not discourage certain behavior, but encourage the player to continue with his prefered playstyle and have the world around him react to this playstyle. This prefered playstyle should also be rewarded accordingly.

[Jarmo]

Yeah, FO:NV had pretty nice reputation system, but it was also immensely flawed at the same time.

I'd murder a whole bunch of passerbys (gangers and such) by ways of clever sniper action, to get XP and especially for loot.

 

Normal people start treating me like a messiah.  Sure, I butchered a lot of riff raff, but only to get their stuff and who told anybody anyway?

Gangers start hating me like cancer. Who the hell told them it was me?

 

When I murder someone it's all nice and cool and looting their corpses likewise,

but if I then steal their stuff from a cupboard I'm doing crimes and everybody starts hating me.

 

Jack Nobody from Hickswille wont deal with me because I stole stuff from a van miles away. Without being caught.

 

But yeah. Reputation systems can be great.

 

I'd like to see axis like:

 

good guy - bad guy

on our side - against us

sane and coherent - probably insane

 

Basically, if you murder 1 person and save 6 from robbers, save the Bishop of Lawful Stuff from eye cultists, but then burn his cow on behalf of the cult, the stuff might cancel each others out on the first two axis, but then throw you way right in the insanity axis.

 

Meaning... dunno. Maybe someone would clamp up, maybe thread carefully. 

[TRX850]

Reading through comments regarding Souls in other threads, I'm wondering more than ever now if they will play more of a role in punishing or rewarding a character for their actions.  Maybe the soul can act like the player's very own mini-DM?  Or a combination of your soul and your chosen deity?

[AGX-17]

Every aspect of game design and mechanics is "cause and effect." Every aspect of reality is cause and effect, excluding our current understanding of quantum mechanics. How is this a helpful idea or improvement? You don't have a game without cause & effect. All you've got here is some rambling, weird idea to complicate the existing fundamentals of game design with pointless extra doodads stuck on.

Edited February 8, 2013 by AGX-17

[TRX850]

Every aspect of game design and mechanics is "cause and effect." Every aspect of reality is cause and effect, excluding our current understanding of quantum mechanics. How is this a helpful idea or improvement? You don't have a game without cause & effect. All you've got here is some rambling, weird idea to complicate the existing fundamentals of game design with pointless extra doodads stuck on.

 

 

Clearly, you didn't read this thread.

Edited February 8, 2013 by TRX850

[Razsius]

Yeah, FO:NV had pretty nice reputation system, but it was also immensely flawed at the same time.

 

I'd murder a whole bunch of passerbys (gangers and such) by ways of clever sniper action, to get XP and especially for loot.

 

 

 

Normal people start treating me like a messiah. Sure, I butchered a lot of riff raff, but only to get their stuff and who told anybody anyway?

 

Gangers start hating me like cancer. Who the hell told them it was me?

 

 

 

When I murder someone it's all nice and cool and looting their corpses likewise,

 

but if I then steal their stuff from a cupboard I'm doing crimes and everybody starts hating me.

 

 

 

Jack Nobody from Hickswille wont deal with me because I stole stuff from a van miles away. Without being caught.

 

I think we often get a little hung up on the "little things" as it were. In the real world, there are very few times one can commit the "perfect crime."  In worlds that have the divination spell school it should be fairly obviously that a perfect crime that you thought you had committed wasn't so perfect.  Tack on the fact that if a sudden bout of murders and thefts occurs in a town it really is highly unlikely that the local authorities will think that someone within the populace has suddenly become erratic.  No, the much more obvious answer is the adventuring group that has just recently come into town.  The authorities do not have to see you blatantly commit your robberies to surmise that it was *you* that has done so.  Your reputation would, of course, be effected.   As for misplaced trust, well... it's misplaced isn't it?  A robust reputation system should allow all this and reflect it at the same time.

 

Besides, in a world where there are Cipher detectives I believe we can allow for a little more realism then "but he didn't see me rob that house!"

[Jarmo]

Although, in the game.

If you walk the same town at night you're probably going to be assaulted by 20 bandits, whom all the ciphers didn't manage to find.