Adequate rewards

[motorizer]

If the rewards are too big in a game with loads of quests it leads to money and rewards becoming meaningless later in the game as you are so rich you can afford everything.

 

They have to balance the money...otherwise it becomes pointless even having money in the game....

Edited June 1, 2013 by motorizer

[Failion]

I always felt there should be more in depth rewards then what you see in rpg classics 101 then receiving new enchanted equipment. Since the game has a stronghold. Build relationship soul bond points with player built companions after clearing out dungeons. And these points act as a currency you can spend at your stronghold. Assigning your player named npc to Aesthetic roles like moping the floors or patrolling the grounds.

[Frenetic Pony]

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).

 

That second part has two problems. The first is, if the monetary reward is what you're focusing on then the story hasn't done it's job. The second is by the very nature of a video game, at least this type of game. In these games you are an inherently victorious machine of devastation.

 

And that's the real, fundamental problem RPG's or any other such games out there from shooters to etc. need to overcome. Inherent Victory. All such games are designed around the only way to go forward and to have fun is victory. So you've no reason not to slaughter everyone in sight, because that's just what you do. It'd be awesome to see an RPG, or even a shooter or etc. where you aren't inherently victorious. Something like Day Z where you can fail at any time, but it's still fun to do so. And really, really fail, not just a setback like in Darksouls. But that's not going to be Project Eternity, it's going to take someone smart and who doesn't give a **** about how other games are made to get it done.

 

As for the first problem E.G. If you just give the same amount of reward for the diplomatic option, the only consequence comes down to the story choice. If the choice doesn't matter to you story wise, then it's not probably not a good enough story.

[motorizer]

 

And that's the real, fundamental problem RPG's or any other such games out there from shooters to etc. need to overcome. Inherent Victory. All such games are designed around the only way to go forward and to have fun is victory. So you've no reason not to slaughter everyone in sight, because that's just what you do. It'd be awesome to see an RPG, or even a shooter or etc. where you aren't inherently victorious. Something like Day Z where you can fail at any time, but it's still fun to do so. And really, really fail, not just a setback like in Darksouls. But that's not going to be Project Eternity, it's going to take someone smart and who doesn't give a **** about how other games are made to get it done.

 

 

 

 

Project zomboid and dwarf fortress spring to mind...

[Iron_JG]

First off, let's not kid ourselves. We're not just playing for the story -- we're also playing for loot and power. I'd say story/character development is the main leg of the tripod here, but it still falls over without the other two legs of items and XP. We're pretty much all here because we love DnD games, which stands for... Dungeons and Dragons. Killing stuff and then taking its stuff is fundamental to the medium. To use BG2 as an example, I loved it when my paladin won Aerie's heart and helped Valygar defeat his literal and personal demons. But I also nearly jumped for joy every time I got my grubby mitts on Carsomyr after Minsc and Boo and I dealt irreversible damage to Firkraag's eyeballs. It takes several quality ingredients to bake a cake.

 

That said, I think tangible and intangible rewards have to be balanced and logically doled out. If a quest rewards little money, it should give a cool item. If it does neither, it should reward experience or some other character development perk. If it does none of those, it's probably a side quest and it should lead to something bigger or just be a lot of fun to go through. However, I think replayability and logic dictate you shouldn't be able to get all the goodies, tangible and intangible, in one playthrough. I'd like to see rewards adapt/cater to a player's play style, where applicable. It'd be nice if a diplomatic party got items that furthered its diplomatic abilities or opened up special story lines, whereas a combat-obsessed party would get better overall fighting gear/spells. Now, games usually just have most/all items available, in one way or another, in every playthrough, meaning players see the whole "buffet," but still develop the party with what they choose to use. But having some items/abilities never revealed to certain play styles would make secondary playthroughs more surprising/interesting.

 

Addendum and non sequitur: I want an awesome Holy Avenger. It should be so sexy, it hurts. I mean that in the most righteous way possible.

[yaminsoul]

For me  I also would like "logical rewards," kinda but I think that sort of realize would very, very hard to implement without sacrificing alot of game play. Because unless your character and friend are ONLY picking richer and richer people, or at least higher level craftsman, to help as the game goes on and you level, the rewards are going to be complelty mismatched to your parties xp. I mean, if were are going to be logical, the village smith is never going to have the same level money or equipment as the master one in the city, but if you encounter said smith with quest late in the game, you might feel kinda of sad if all he can give is 10gp and a hammer. Now some people might love this "realism" but eh, not really for me.

 

Remember it all good if you help the monarch and he gives a billion gold but you have to apply the same logic for the dirt farmer

 

As to another issue that was brought up, yes I would love to see full xp, if not more xp for talking/sneaking your way through a problem, as then you don't get to loot the NPCs, which is where you normally get all the Good stuff in IE games.IF they are only giving xp for quests, thats one way to do it, but that still leaves the item problem for non-violent solutions.

[Crowseye]

In order to maintain a certain logical relationship between the price and quality of store-bought items at the beginning and end of the game, one of two things has to happen: either rewards for helping powerful individuals or for performing involved and difficult tasks -- something I think we all like to see a lot of in our RPGs -- have to be scaled back OR overall loot quality needs to stay very flat for the entire game, so that supposedly exceptional rewards like a magic sword are truly exceptional regardless of what point in the game they are obtained and are worth holding onto.

 

Gamers are rarely happy with either approach.  In this thread we have people unhappy about getting a "crappy" couple of gold and a magic sword +2 from a noble as a reward for, let's say, ridding his lands of the powerful evil wizard, when they do far better than that just in loot while completing the task.  Elsewhere we've had people complain about spending 90% of the game looting a bunch of junk whose only use is to vendor for a few insignificant coin.  I've come across plenty of people who complain that after racing to get the longsword +2 Varscona in BG, they then have nothing to look forward to for their longsword-wielding main character for the rest of the game.

 

You can also just not worry about the player having astronomical amounts of money.  Many games take that approach, and in games with linear world design this works because with item power and shop prices rising to astronomical values along the way, the player is still always facing a budget constraint.  Now it's the yeoman quest givers and merchants that become completely unrealistic, with Iron Will the blacksmith selling the Greatsword +6 "Edge of Eternity" for 1,000,000 gold or NPCs paying you with enough gold to have bought a large kingdom ... but the reward and gear progression mechanic at least still feel satisfying.

 

If the world is open, however, and players can and will travel to areas of the game they previously explored and are tuned for earlier play, this can cause certain significant issues.  Now I can sell an extra Dagger +4 I have laying around and buy every scroll, potion, and magic arrow in lowly Little Hamlet without thinking twice about it.  You can have an inflation mechanic, but it's "end game" is the same as the above, with NPC behavior becoming completely unrealistic.  Having a dagger that went for 5 copper at one point in the game going for 5 gold later on is IMO as immersion-breaking as a lord offering a reward worse than the leader of the bandit camp was carrying on his person.

 

I don't think there's a right answer.  There may be a right answer for the particular goals a designer wants to achieve, but all approaches have a place somewhere.

 

In single-player games my personal preference is usually for relatively flat loot quality.  I think a generic orc in Chapter MAX should usually be carrying the same axe as an orc in Chapter 1.  I make 2g looting coin and vendoring a bunch of generic items obtained clearing a map regardless of my level, then receive an appropriate 5g reward and the unique Greathelm +2 "Falcon Crest" from the lord who sent me there.  Regardless of where I am in the game world, my 7g buys me goods of arguably comparable value, and regardless of when I obtain it, one of my characters will probably be wearing Falcon Crest when the final boss gets downed.  Of course, I also prefer a much flatter power progression than has become standard in RPGs.  I don't need to finish the game as a god who can whirlwind through an entire city and come out with nary a scratch, but I think most players have come to expect that in their RPGs.

[eschaton]

This is a bit of an aside, but I'm hoping P:E doesn't have random loot.  IMHO game immersion was broken in some more recent RPGs because the deaders dropped random things which were scaled to the level of the PC.  This is especially weird when you have spiders and the like having magic scrolls, for example (I don't want to even think where it was keeping it).  Monsters should have no loot except for whatever body parts are saleable (how often will the PC seriously cut open intestines in hopes of finding lodged gold amongst the poo?)  For humanoids, I'd prefer if all gear is droppable, but some can get ruined as a result of an attack.  For example, if your roast a wizard, his grimoire might be unreadable.   

 

IMHO gameplay is better when magic items are dialed way back.  I liked how in BG1, for example, it took you until halfway through the game for your party to all have +1 weapons, and you didn't advance too much beyond that.  I liked that nothing beat Varscona, although I do have to say I was a bit peeved at how many bastard swords the game threw at you.  Studies have shown that people are actually more happy (IRL) with choice up to a certain point.  Past this, they get increasingly unhappy, as they focus on the downside of each choice rather than the upside.  I think the same can be said broadly for loot.  Options are good, but constraint to some degree is needed for real happiness - otherwise we'll have constant inflation of expectations.  

[Lephys]

Remember it all good if you help the monarch and he gives a billion gold but you have to apply the same logic for the dirt farmer

That's exactly why there are so many different rewards that can be gained. While the monarch might have oodles of money (one thing that is very useful to you), the dirt farmer's reward need not come directly from the dirt farmer, even. Maybe he just needs you to help him with some kidnapped loved one (CLICHE, YAY!), and you uncover a much more elaborate situation involving some rich bandits (just to point out, even, that a dirt farmer quest can actually still lead you to even the exact same monetary reward as the monarch quest), whom you dispatch, then "rob" of all their stolen goods.

 

But, obviously the dirt farmer could have valuable knowledge that the monarch doesn't, or could put in a good word for you with the Merchants' Guild (as his brother is one of the higher-ups), or he can move into your stronghold and put his masterful dirt-farming skills to good use optimizing the agricultural state of your stronghold's land, etc.

 

Money can bribe people and result in otherwise-unknown quests, and quests can lead you to money. All the types of rewards are pretty directly related to one another, in a big circle.

[yaminsoul]

But if we are going for realism in rewards, you might just have to swallow the idea that some quest give less "reward" of ANY type than others, even if its later in the game. After all, it really might just be that certain people or situation can't offer what others can, in a major way.

 

This of course could lead to the a nice ACTUAL moral question: Do you "waste" your time helping the farmer, or do you seak out better rewards. Its even better if the XP is minimal, so really the major reward you get is moral satisifaction and perhaps kudos from certain party members (and perhaps dislike from others).

 

If the developers want to go the way, I would be all for it, but alot of people I think would get mad if they did not get SOME significant rewards for time invested other than warm fuzzies. However it is kinda the logical outcome of a 'logical' reward system

[Lephys]

But if we are going for realism in rewards, you might just have to swallow the idea that some quest give less "reward" of ANY type than others, even if its later in the game. After all, it really might just be that certain people or situation can't offer what others can, in a major way.

 

This of course could lead to the a nice ACTUAL moral question: Do you "waste" your time helping the farmer, or do you seak out better rewards. Its even better if the XP is minimal, so really the major reward you get is moral satisifaction and perhaps kudos from certain party members (and perhaps dislike from others).

 

If the developers want to go the way, I would be all for it, but alot of people I think would get mad if they did not get SOME significant rewards for time invested other than warm fuzzies. However it is kinda the logical outcome of a 'logical' reward system

Well, the key word there is "some." I wasn't meaning to suggest each and every single quest provide you with the exact same abstract value of reward. Obviously a farmer quest doesn't NEED to give you as much as a monarch quest. I mean, the farmer's most likely tied up in far less complex things than the monarch is. On that same token of individual imbalance, you could even be surprised to find that the farmer quest is more substantial and even more rewarding than the monarch quest, against all first appearances and assumptions.

 

BUT, I will say that I don't very much like the idea of story content that rewards you with little-to-nothing, for your time. That's almost like... the purpose of the game. You play it because you get something out of it. That isn't to say your reward must be restricted to money, or precious items, or awesome equipment, or that every 10 minutes you must gain a certain amount of something, etc. But, with a much broader sense of the term "reward," as simply "give you something that is useful in some way," I think rewards should remain quite proportional to the amount of effort involved in the quest (or, at least, potential rewards, I should say). For the most part. If you spend 3 hours figuring out some elaborate plot and stopping an assassination, it would be ridiculous if all you got, the entire time, was a silver piece, or a discount at the manure vendor.

[eschaton]

 If you spend 3 hours figuring out some elaborate plot and stopping an assassination, it would be ridiculous if all you got, the entire time, was a silver piece, or a discount at the manure vendor.

 

If they did that once, and only once, in a game, I'd LOL though.  Particularly if you were telegraphed before even starting the quest that the "rewarder" was a putz.  

[yaminsoul]

And yes, as I said "but alot of people I think would get mad if they did not get SOME significant rewards for time invested other than warm fuzzies." Cause in point above

 

What I wanted to point is NOT that not giving material or useful rewards for time invested is an enjoyable thing for most players of RPG's. Instead,  what I was noting "is kinda the logical outcome of a 'logical' reward system," which was the original point of this thread. I wanted to indicate that when you go for logic in rewards (or pretty much anything else in RPG video games ) you really should be prepared to accept the good with the bad, like possibly not getting rewarded in a substational way for completing certain tasks.

 

Now this is totally against RPG standard conventions, and if they did this more than once, as eschaton noted, I think most people would get very, very mad, I just wanted to point out the reward for quest is a convention, not neccisarily logical in all instances.

 

Oh and Lephys we are going to have lots of fun on this forum together

[Jarmo]

I'd be fine with XP only for doing stuff for poor people. It's substantial enough.

[Lephys]

Haha. I'm with you, yaminsoul. I really am. And I'm really not trying to just nitpick away at all your words, even though I know it sometimes seems that way. I just tend to... well, overly specify, in an effort to avoid ambiguity. So, sometimes I kinda think "Oh, hey, that person said something I like a lot! But that makes me think of a bunch of stuff between the cracks that wasn't actually typed into a post! Better do that now, just in case! 8D"

 

Heh. So... please, bear with that, and I'll try my best not to suggest that I'm pointing out things that you're opposed to, when I'm simply pointing out things I hope get pointed out, for the sake of the discussion as a whole.

 

Regarding the topic, I just think it kind of needs to be juggled, despite the fact that you are very correct in that the rewards don't need to be seen strictly from a gamey perspective. I.e. "Player spends 30 minutes... player gets 30-minute reward." I simply wanted to make sure that the "at the end of the day, this is still a game, and you're playing it to get something out of it, in a more generalized sense" notion was considered alongside the "let's not rip up the lore by just making sure you always get the gold you need on a very neat little schedule of gameplay time" notion. 8P

 

To put it another way, I just think a slight twist of the perspective works wonders. Better to re-evaluate the meaning of "reward" than to worry about exactly when to give a reward and how much. . Both serve the same end, though. Like climbing a ladder or climbing a rope.

 

I am glad that you were already considering both. And yes, we are going to have a perpetu-party. That's a party that never ends. Ever...

Edited June 11, 2013 by Lephys

[yaminsoul]

No, I am fine with arguing and I understand what points you are making. I just found it amusing that you seemed to be stating the exact unhappiness I was saying would be a inevitableconsequence of trying too much for a logical reward  system. Someone asking for too much of this, well be careful what you wish for.

 

Now, I actually think there is a very interesting and risky (very, very risky) innovation for an RPG: To actually have in game consequences for acts, both good and evil that involve not getting rewards of ANY type, even if it involved time and effort.

 

You want to good, and call yourself a paladin or whatever, and have good companions? Well maybe if X dirt farmer wants help, say against a group of ogres or cruel local official...and if you do it, you wont get rewards, of ANY significant type.  

 

And I mean that: No real xp, no money, no gear, no even reputation boost. AS best you might get an appreciative reception from your party. As best.

 

Would you as the player still do it? Would you do it twice...10 times?

 

What if being "Good" was hard, and meant sacrifice...like it usually does in real life.

 

What if there was a game which challenged the equation: time+effort+some skill= in game payoff? Would people play?

 

Anyway, this is all theory-craft, as I very much doubt PE will do this, nor do I think it really should, as it would probably turn off alot of people.  I am just trying to make people aware of the conventions.

[Lephys]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I just... well, I'm going to try not to stray TOO far here, heh, but, I question the integrity of the game, overall, if you can do more than a tiny few things like that and literally end up with nothing (not even a reputation change). I mean, I understand that the "logical reward system" you're talking about is that of the relationship between the game and the player. You know, "well, you did something, so you should get something." And that, alongside that, we have the relationship between the party and NPCs/world, that, in order to maintain world-like-ness, needs to not be quite so logically absolute in your effort-to-reward ratio. I just think the trick is in moderating the two of these. If you JUST stick with the world, and, throughout the game, you frequently do things that earn you nothing... well, the fact remains that it's an intentionally and specifically designed video game, and that a player is playing this, and that the player is putting in time at his computer and is NOT experiencing anything from within the confines of the game world.

 

And, I didn't clarify before, but, I should've said that in the typical mold of gradual-progression that most RPGs use, if you spend all your time and effort on 10 different quests, and you fail to achieve anything with them, then you're literally at a detriment according to the game's own design. If those 10 quests don't matter, really, then you've failed to ACTUALLY upset the logical reward system. If they do matter, then you either get some progression-aiding rewards from them (even if it's simply actual experience -- skill advancement and character knowledge and the like -- or access to further quests, etc.) and keep up with the curve, or you get nothing from any of them and fall far behind it.

 

That's all I meant. To some degree, the freedom of offering no-reward quest outcomes is subject to the design of the game, and the game-player relationship. Basically, if the things you could've potentially gotten as a reward are necessary in some capacity, then you've got to give them out, in some capacity. Otherwise, you're kind of making one of the outcomes the "right" one, and one or more the "wrong" one. I'm all for "What, I thought I was gonna get 3,000 gold pieces here, this whole time! Turns out all I get is a pat on the back, and the support of local farmers?!" Maybe that's just reputation, or maybe the support of local farmers provides an otherwise-unavailable opportunity in some other quest/situation (like being able to procure additional foodstuffs in some kind of siege, etc.). So, you got something for your efforts. You just don't always get something immediately useful, or useful in the particular way you would like.

[yaminsoul]

I think we have strayed a bit too far from original topic so I will move the discussion into a new thread "moral choices and consequences."

[Lephys]

Ahh, my apologies... I did not mean "right and wrong" as in morality. I meant more like "Correct and incorrect." As in, "this choice actually advances you toward some goal, and this one does not. But don't worry, they're both totally viable."

[JR.9613]

When it comes to rewards (loot, gold and xp) I think that it is important to balance the cost of "living" in the world and the setting/story in each area with the quantity and quality of the rewards your character(s) receive.

 

By "living" in the game world I mean that literally. The best example that I can think of are the inns in BG (the second one in particular). The best of the best for sleeping arrangements in those inns were the "royal" suites which cost only 16 gold (if I remember correctly) and, by the time the players made it out of the starter dungeon, these rooms were no longer considered expensive (from a player's perspective). This made absolutely no sense to me considering a drink from the same inn could cost up to 30 gold.

 

My point here is that rewards that are actually rewarding are nice, but they should be balanced in consideration of the world economy to make the game more challenging and better from a RP perspective.