Adequate rewards

[Cultist]

What annoyed me in Baldur's Game, NWN and several othe RPGs is a completely inadequate rewards.

You kill 30 foes, loot several thousands gold and get 200 gold a as a reward for quest completion.

Worse still, if you are presented with two options - kill'em all and solve conflict diplomatically often diplomacy is less favorable as potential rewards many times weaker than what you got from violent solution(loot).

[TrashMan]

Rewards? Meh...

 

I don't feel a need to get rewarded for every click or action. That's skinners box talk right there.

 

 

When quests do have reqards, they should be logical.

Edited April 29, 2013 by TrashMan

[mkreku]

Even more annoying: you walk the land and happen upon a really well-hidden cave. You enter it and it's guarded by ten minotaurs. You barely fight your way through, all the while avoiding ancient traps and deadly contraptions. When you finally reach the end of the cave, you see a gilded chest, covered in dust. You open the chest.. and loot 2 gold and a wooden ladle.

 

This actually happened a lot in Gothic 3 (hugely ambitious game where the developers ran out of time and were forced to randomly fill the game world through scripts).

 

SO ANNOYING.

[Kjaamor]

While I think most quest rewards should be appropriate, it can be nice to have a few duff endings just to give some variance. Ultimately, in just about every rpg ever, the quest reward is the experience and any money or gear tends to be quite secondary in terms of what you're chasing.

 

Personally, I did have a particular gripe with the BG 1 system of rewards, mainly because completely long, drawn out quests offered nowhere near the equipment rewards of going around starting fights with people in the wilderness. As a person who plays chaotic/neutral good parties in rpgs, it always irritated me that I was encouraged to kick-off at people who weren't even threatening me in order to get the decent gear.

 

...but, while it irritated me, props to BG 1 for being one of precious few games that actually gave a viable option for 'evil' parties. In most rpgs, and the early Fallouts are particularly guilty of this, evil questing just means slightly more money for vastly less experience.

[Nonek]

Dragon Age: Origins. I've saved Redcliffe village and everyone in it from undeath, I then ventured into the evils lair and exorcised a demon from a child, and in the process got a frenchwoman to commit suicide. Following these great and good feats I find the ashes of a gods bride, kill a high dragon, dismantle a cult of dragon worshippers and wake the ensorcelled nobleman who owns Redcliffe from his slumber.

 

In thanks I get a shield.

 

Great.

[Labadal]

This is how I want to feel when I loot enemies and open chests:

 

[rjshae]

It doesn't have to be all about the gold and goods. In fact, it would be nice if some of the benefits of the reward aren't immediately apparent.

 

What about more insubstantial rewards? The eternal thanks of the good people of Whossit de Fylde? An improved reputation resulting in allies and benefits? Maybe a strengthening of your soul? A landed title? The service of a skilled craftsman? The allegiance of a worthy knight? The favor of a patron who can lend you aid at a later date? Members of the opposite sex swooning at your feet? A big parade and the unveiling of a statue?

 

For physical goods, it doesn't have to be equip-able items. Perhaps it could be an alchemical recipe or a new spell? A fine wagon team to make your travels go more quickly. Maybe a mysterious key whose purpose you only discover much later. &c.

[SymbolicFrank]

If it should be somewhat realistic, looting anything except small and light valuables should be hard. Running around with multiple armors and swords might be doable, as long as you don't have to fight while carrying them.

 

I liked how Deus Ex handled it: you only got experience from completing quests, and loot was very hard to carry around. The XP allowed you to unlock your potential. That also makes it easy for the developers to design content, and it becomes more like training up and specializing.

 

Then again, if you want XP to mean: getting more experience in a skill, you might want to consider only counting high rolls. "OOH! I just made a critical attack!" But that might imply that the XP gained can only be used to improve the skill used to gain it. Getting better in, for example, magic, after squashing 10 rats with your quarterstaff seems silly to me.

Edited April 29, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

[Lephys]

When quests do have reqards, they should be logical.

I believe that's quite possibly what the OP is getting at.

 

When some monarch literally owes you their life, why do you get .000000000000000001% of their treasury as your reward?

 

"Thanks, have this blackjack +1."

"Uhh... maybe a few gold pieces would help, since we're pretty much broke, and we just saved your life."

"Okay, THAT'S it! I'm taking the blackjack back! u_u"

 

 

Really, though, when the reward doesn't seem logical (in the context of the game world), that's when it feels like some guy who was sitting at a desk, programming this world, just jumped in and decided how much money you should get from this monarch so as to keep the prices of all the goods he encoded in the next town in-check.

[Kjaamor]

But that might imply that the XP gained can only be used to improve the skill used to gain it. Getting better in, for example, magic, after squashing 10 rats with your quarterstaff seems silly to me.

 

If I understand this correctly, this is yet another one of those issues of 'Realism vs Gameplay'. It is, to paraphrase what you say, a ridiculous situation that killing boars should make you a better locksmith. Yet as a gameplay mechanic I infinitely prefer the 'Allocating Exp as you choose' system over the 'Using this makes you better at it' system. I understand that it is rather illogical (save that the chances are you will be improving skills you use the most), but it just tends to make for more interesting and satisfying levelling experiences and rewards than the Morrowind model where I used to spend hours jumping up and down hills to boost my acrobatics, and going away and making a cup of tea while a rat attacked me to improve my armour.

 

There's no question that it's the less realistic model, but it just seems to be the more rewarding and is certainly one of the key elements of the IE games that P:E seeks to imitate.

[SymbolicFrank]

 

But that might imply that the XP gained can only be used to improve the skill used to gain it. Getting better in, for example, magic, after squashing 10 rats with your quarterstaff seems silly to me.

 

If I understand this correctly, this is yet another one of those issues of 'Realism vs Gameplay'. It is, to paraphrase what you say, a ridiculous situation that killing boars should make you a better locksmith. Yet as a gameplay mechanic I infinitely prefer the 'Allocating Exp as you choose' system over the 'Using this makes you better at it' system. I understand that it is rather illogical (save that the chances are you will be improving skills you use the most), but it just tends to make for more interesting and satisfying levelling experiences and rewards than the Morrowind model where I used to spend hours jumping up and down hills to boost my acrobatics, and going away and making a cup of tea while a rat attacked me to improve my armour.

 

There's no question that it's the less realistic model, but it just seems to be the more rewarding and is certainly one of the key elements of the IE games that P:E seeks to imitate.

 

Yes, but that and what Lephys said make it so, that the prudent cause of action is simply to kill and loot everyone as soon as their quests are completed. More loot and XP!

 

I know that that's more or less what "adventuring" means, but it makes me feel like being stupid when playing the good guy. Chaotic evil gets the best rewards, if they wait until the usefullness of the NPC's becomes low. Which is probably what they would do, if they have any intelligence.

 

The only way for the devs to counter that is to make all the NPC's telepathic, which is what they tend to do...

Edited April 30, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

[Kjaamor]

Yes, but that and what Lephys said make it so, that the prudent cause of action is simply to kill and loot everyone as soon as their quests are completed. More loot and XP!

 

I know that that's more or less what "adventuring" means, but it makes me feel like being stupid when playing the good guy. Chaotic evil gets the best rewards, if they wait until the usefullness of the NPC's becomes low. Which is probably what they would do, if they have any intelligence.

 

The only way for the devs to counter that is to make all the NPC's telepathic, which is what they tend to do...

 

My understanding was that all exp in P:E was going to be quest-based (but I can't reference that, so take it with the standard truckload of salt), and in most IE games killing people who give quests rarely leaves heaps of reward upon their dead bodies.

 

...but if it does, that does at least finally give a reasonable chance to Chaotic Evil parties!

[Lephys]

Yes, but that and what Lephys said make it so, that the prudent cause of action is simply to kill and loot everyone as soon as their quests are completed. More loot and XP!

 

I know that that's more or less what "adventuring" means, but it makes me feel like being stupid when playing the good guy. Chaotic evil gets the best rewards, if they wait until the usefullness of the NPC's becomes low. Which is probably what they would do, if they have any intelligence.

 

The only way for the devs to counter that is to make all the NPC's telepathic, which is what they tend to do...

True, but that's why you put in realistic risks/consequences, such as your party frowning heavily upon your douchebaggery, or personalized items of value (you find Glarka's silver necklace, and you take it to the next town to sell it, but the merchant says "Hey, wait a minute... I recognize that necklace! Glarka was a traveling peddler, and he used to come here all the time! Where did you get that?!").

 

You don't get so heavy-handed with such implementations that you PREVENT players from being Chaotic Douchebags, but, it should be a trade-off, at some level. You can't just plain get more than everyone else throughout the entire game and never suffer any consequences, or risk of over-use. In certain situations, using up NPCs, then killing and looting them should be perfectly get-away-with-able, and not provide as many consequences. But, then, unbeknownst to the player beforehand, SOME situations should be about 80% consequences and 20% reward (you actually would've ended up with more in your greedy hands had you not killed and looted those people).

 

Stuff like that.

 

That's why I hate games that reduce all of weapon effectiveness to DPS. "Well, this 2-handed hammer is much slower, but does way more damage than this faster dagger." But, you look at DPS ratings, and the hammer is sitting at 20, while the dagger's at 17. Welp. 2-handed hammer it is! Why? Because there's nothing else to the combat system that would make you want to use a dagger instead of a hammer, because higher damage is always better, and that's all there is to it.

[SymbolicFrank]

That's why I hate games that reduce all of weapon effectiveness to DPS. "Well, this 2-handed hammer is much slower, but does way more damage than this faster dagger." But, you look at DPS ratings, and the hammer is sitting at 20, while the dagger's at 17. Welp. 2-handed hammer it is! Why? Because there's nothing else to the combat system that would make you want to use a dagger instead of a hammer, because higher damage is always better, and that's all there is to it.

 

Yes, I agree. But I think it's even worse when each weapon is equally effective as every other weapon, as long as it has the same pluses. Or classes or races, for that matter. Like, any 4E PC can do anything another one can, it's just using skills with different names.

 

Not that I like classes that much, but that's another discussion

 

 

It shouldn't be completely rock-paper-scissors, that would be the other extreme, but I like it when some weapons are better or worse in certain circumstances. Never useless, but perhaps with negative consequences, like edged weapons splitting slimes. That's cool.

 

That's also why I would like it for wizards (or at least light armor users) to be able to have great protection against certain kinds of damage, but little or none against others. That balances it out, if you fight against a group. Bosses can be badass and only vulnerable against a limited amount of things.

 

And if they want heavy armor, they can! Just invest in strength and constitution. And be a weaker wizard. And I would be fine with that being the same as a fighter investing in some magic.

[Lephys]

Yes, I agree. But I think it's even worse when each weapon is equally effective as every other weapon, as long as it has the same pluses. Or classes or races, for that matter. Like, any 4E PC can do anything another one can, it's just using skills with different names.

Most definitely. I don't think the problem lies within number balancing, but in the actual lack of complexity in the system. All you need, at the very least, is ONE more variable thrown in there to provide a way in which the dagger CAN be better than the 2-handed hammer. See, the whole "Oh, well let's balance it out so that none of them are different" still doesn't even address the problem, much less solve it, . But, I guess some people try it, in case it does or something. Heh.

 

The point being that, in an RPG, the general idea is that, if you're "bad," you get to do stuff and get more "rewards" (loot, basically), all the time, and it's absolutely better. However, that doesn't have to be the case. Maybe at EVERY single instance you're able, you take advantage of someone else, and get 50 more gold pieces as compared to a completely neutral playthrough (or even "good" one). The game can easily be complex enough that you suffer various other consequences and actually miss out on a lot of stuff that another player wouldn't, in exchange for your extra coins all along the road through the game. Logically and realistically so. If you kill and loot EVERYone you come across after you've pretended to have no intentions of the sort, then eventually, someone's going to find out you're doing this, and they're going to have credibility, and you're going to be screwed the next time you try to even get anywhere with anyone (to "use them up" before killing and looting them). Whereas, the other player would have full access to that place/those people, because they didn't go around doing something that people would very much like to know about so that they can shun you for it.

[TrashMan]

 

But that might imply that the XP gained can only be used to improve the skill used to gain it. Getting better in, for example, magic, after squashing 10 rats with your quarterstaff seems silly to me.

 

If I understand this correctly, this is yet another one of those issues of 'Realism vs Gameplay'. It is, to paraphrase what you say, a ridiculous situation that killing boars should make you a better locksmith. Yet as a gameplay mechanic I infinitely prefer the 'Allocating Exp as you choose' system over the 'Using this makes you better at it' system. I understand that it is rather illogical (save that the chances are you will be improving skills you use the most), but it just tends to make for more interesting and satisfying levelling experiences and rewards than the Morrowind model where I used to spend hours jumping up and down hills to boost my acrobatics, and going away and making a cup of tea while a rat attacked me to improve my armour.

 

There's no question that it's the less realistic model, but it just seems to be the more rewarding and is certainly one of the key elements of the IE games that P:E seeks to imitate.

 

 

I like it how everyone keeps brining in Morrowind, as if it's the OLNY learn-by-doing model in existence.

 

LBD can be done nicely, all it needs is some checks.

Not to mention that the "standard" XP system can be also abused like hell.

[TrashMan]

 

Yes, but that and what Lephys said make it so, that the prudent cause of action is simply to kill and loot everyone as soon as their quests are completed. More loot and XP!

 

I know that that's more or less what "adventuring" means, but it makes me feel like being stupid when playing the good guy. Chaotic evil gets the best rewards, if they wait until the usefullness of the NPC's becomes low. Which is probably what they would do, if they have any intelligence.

 

The only way for the devs to counter that is to make all the NPC's telepathic, which is what they tend to do...

 

 

Question: Do you feel stupid in RL for not robbing a bank?

You'd have more money.

 

 

A RPG isn't about loot - it's about experience. And I'm talking about the experience of adventure not XP.

Edited April 30, 2013 by TrashMan

[Kjaamor]

I like it how everyone keeps brining in Morrowind, as if it's the OLNY learn-by-doing model in existence.

 

LBD can be done nicely, all it needs is some checks.

Not to mention that the "standard" XP system can be also abused like hell.

 

Outside of tES, then only games I can think of that did the learn-by-doing model were Wizardry 8 and Dungeon Siege 2. Wizardry 8 had a lot of very seperate issues that make it difficult for me to say how well the leveling system worked. Dungeon Siege 2 had a fairly reasonable half-way model where your skill allocations were capped by your learn-by-doing rating. It was enjoyable, but I wouldn't have said it was half the system of BG/Fallout/IWD.

 

What, and I ask with genuine interest, were the LBD models that did things nicely, in your opinion?

[Jarmo]

Couple of things.

 

Yeah, chaotic evil characters playing it clever should get the best rewards.

Playing it greedy should get most cash, otherwise greedy players pretend to be noble.

 

Yeah, logical rewards.

Not only meaning saving a princess should net a big honkin' sack of gold and pearls,

but also helping an old lady across the street shouldn't be rewarded with 4000 gp.

(not even if 4000gp would seem level appropriate reward for 20th level characters)

[TrashMan]

 

I like it how everyone keeps brining in Morrowind, as if it's the OLNY learn-by-doing model in existence.

 

LBD can be done nicely, all it needs is some checks.

Not to mention that the "standard" XP system can be also abused like hell.

 

Outside of tES, then only games I can think of that did the learn-by-doing model were Wizardry 8 and Dungeon Siege 2. Wizardry 8 had a lot of very seperate issues that make it difficult for me to say how well the leveling system worked. Dungeon Siege 2 had a fairly reasonable half-way model where your skill allocations were capped by your learn-by-doing rating. It was enjoyable, but I wouldn't have said it was half the system of BG/Fallout/IWD.

 

What, and I ask with genuine interest, were the LBD models that did things nicely, in your opinion?

 

 

For example, Jagged Alliance 2

 

[AGX-17]

What annoyed me in Baldur's Game, NWN and several othe RPGs is a completely inadequate rewards.

You kill 30 foes, loot several thousands gold and get 200 gold a as a reward for quest completion.

Worse still, if you are presented with two options - kill'em all and solve conflict diplomatically often diplomacy is less favorable as potential rewards many times weaker than what you got from violent solution(loot).

Of course, P:E isn't BG or NWN. The only way you're getting experience points is by completing quests, so I'd imagine whatever loot drops you get will be more valuable, since your opportunities for character growth are limited by the quests available at any given time. The primary driver behind completing quests is going to be the experience.

[SymbolicFrank]

How about an example: We have a central shopping hub, with a central quest giver that gives out the quests for the first half of the game. Like IWD.

 

1. I try and kill that quest giver immediately when I meet him for the first time. What happens?

a) The quest giver is on the list of people you cannot attack.

b) The quest giver is invulnerable and immortal.

c) The quest giver is very strong and wipes out your party.

d) You kill the quest giver after a decent fight.

 

A is just stupid.

B as well.

C is interesting, I come back when I can kill him.

D is problematic: how am I going to continue to the next area?

 

If "burning earth" is a viable strategy, I could still continue to the next area by exploring, but I would get less (or no) quest XP. That's cool. And even if killing that quest giver has negative consequences and he doesn't give XP or loot, I might still do it just to experience a very tough and hard fight, and perhaps to f*** up the storyline. Which would be it's own reward.

 

Make them tough, and give hard enemies nice loot. But only give XP for quest completion. That allows either great stats, or great gear (for the extreme playing styles).

 

And why only quest givers that are good? That dark and evil wizard might give you a nice reward for that powerful item, or killing that irritating good-doer. But in that case, we would need multiple story lines.

[Gfted1]

There is no good or evil in P:E, only reputations.

[.Leif.]

There is no good or evil in P:E, only reputations.

Do you have a source for this? I thought morality would play some role given you could chose to follow some faith or another. I have a feeling they'll move beyond the tired old LG-CE alignment chart of D&D but there only being reputation is news to me.

[Prometheus]

Here is a source ( a bit old but I couldn't find one that is newer)

 

 

Hi Josh, will there be some elements from Fallout?For me,the point and attack system adding will be great.

I'm not sure what you mean by point and attack system, but we will likely be using a reputation system similar to F:NV in Project Eternity (also, we aren't using "alignment", "karma" or other morality meters). In general, the way we will be approaching the world design and faction development will likely be similar to F:NV. We want the characters to feel like they have believable motivations, reasons for doing what they do.

 

Edited June 1, 2013 by Prometheus