What would PE look like if Obsidian catered to the worst of us?

[jethro]

Killing Firkraag was an objective in a quest and that was not my point, my point was that in P:E you could hire a dwarf to collapse the cave and kill him and that would give you the same xp as going in your self and pulling up you sleeves.

What a plan! Every adventurer, every RPG player would be proud to have executed such a clever plan (I assume it wasn't easy to find out the cave could be collapsed and finding a suitable dwarf. A well made RPG will not make one solution trivial when the other is difficult). Do I really understand you correctly that for you it isn't anything more than the whimpy solution? <...incredulous silence...> If yes, we live in different dimensions

Edited October 18, 2013 by jethro

[Lephys]

 

Killing Firkraag was an objective in a quest and that was not my point, my point was that in P:E you could hire a dwarf to collapse the cave and kill him and that would give you the same xp as going in your self and pulling up you sleeves.

What a plan! Every adventurer, every RPG player would be proud to have executed such a clever plan (I assume it wasn't easy to find out the cave could be collapsed and finding a suitable dwarf. A well made RPG will not make one solution trivial when the other is difficult). Do I really understand you correctly that for you it isn't anything more than the whimpy solution? <...incredulous silence...> If yes, you live in a different dimension from me.

 

Exactly! "Clearly, there would just be a Dwarf, standing around at the entrance to the cave, and there'd be a simple Persuasion check to get him to automagically complete the entire objective for you." That's the mentality I don't get. As if it couldn't possibly be more complicated than that.

 

Why don't people understand: You come up with an overly simplistic non-fighty solution example that doesn't seem to deserve any XP, and I could just as easily come up with an overly simplistic fighty solution that doesn't seem to deserve any XP. Does that mean all combat is stupid and shouldn't get XP? Nope.

 

That's the other thing. There's no actual reciprocal to the argument FOR per-kill XP. You don't see anyone running about saying "the death of something should be grounds for automatic 0-XP awards, no matter what the circumstances!" *shrug*. It's just rather interesting to me.

[Malekith]

 

Not quest, objective. I believe most of the quests will have smaller objectives in them, most of them optional. Just imagine Windspear hills where the big quest would be to save the child, with killing Firkraag as a sub objective. But i could be wrong about that.

 

Killing Firkraag was an objective in a quest and that was not my point, my point was that in P:E you could hire a dwarf to collapse the cave and kill him and that would give you the same xp as going in your self and pulling up you sleeves.

Yes. How exactly is this bad? For me that would be a plus for the game.

[Sarex]

Again, like you don't even read my post, what I said is that collapsing the cave or sneaking past it or talking or running away is easier than a hard fight. What you seem to forget is that this is a game and not the real world. Gameplay wise, all those things take less effort then a hard fight. Also, why are you talking about rewarding a computer character with xp, it is the player who is ultimately being rewarded, and removing that reward is removing the incentive from the player to do anything that requires effort in the game. So no, those things are not anything less in the realm of the mighty hero doing them, but seeing as you are not that hero but a lowly player of a game, then there should be a differentiation for rewarding you in doing something easy and something hard.

 

To finish of, so there isn't any misunderstanding again, it is not about the act of killing or the hero learning or any of the other ridiculous stuff I keep hearing, it is simply about rewarding the player for doing something that is hard to do vs. him taking the easy way out. We are, in the end, not doing a visual novel but a hard core (XD) RPG game.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Sarex

[Valorian]

 

To finish of, so there isn't any misunderstanding again, it is not about the act of killing or the hero learning or any of the other ridiculous stuff I keep hearing, it is simply about rewarding the player for doing something that is hard to do vs. him taking the easy way out. We are, in the end, not doing a visual novel but a hard core (XD) RPG game.

 

But then again, Autismys and co. will vehemently argue that combat itself actually isn't any harder than the process of skipping combat.

[Sarex]

But then again, Autismys and co. will vehemently argue that combat itself actually isn't any harder than the process of skipping combat.

 

Then I will just laugh my ass off and move on.

[Malekith]

Again, like you don't even read my post, what I said is that collapsing the cave or sneaking past it or talking or running away is easier than a hard fight. What you seem to forget is that this is a game and not the real world. Gameplay wise, all those things take less effort then a hard fight. Also, why are you talking about rewarding a computer character with xp, it is the player who is ultimately being rewarded, and removing that reward is removing the incentive from the player to do anything that requires effort in the game. So no, those things are not anything less in the realm of the mighty hero doing them, but seeing as you are not that hero but a lowly player of a game, then there should be a differentiation for rewarding you in doing something easy and something hard.

 

To finish of, so there isn't any misunderstanding again, it is not about the act of killing or the hero learning or any of the other ridiculous stuff I keep hearing, it is simply about rewarding the player for doing something that is hard to do vs. him taking the easy way out. We are, in the end, not doing a visual novel but a hard core (XD) RPG game.

I understand what you mean. I just disagree with many of your points.First of all, not all solutions will be viable for all the characters. If you bult your party so it can collapse the tunnel or sneak instead of fight you should be rewarded for that. Second, why should the harder path be rewarded more? From my point of view, if you face a dilema and your character's abilities open for you two paths to the objective, it's the easiest most efficient one that should be rewarded more. If you are idiot and go for the hard path you deserve to suffer.

Third, and this is the words of Sawyer, gameplay should be fun in itself without the need from the dev to bribe you. If you enjoy combat over selecting a skill check, the act of combat should be reward enough for you without the need for Obsidian to pat you in the back and give you more XP.

[Sarex]

I understand what you mean. I just disagree with many of your points.First of all, not all solutions will be viable for all the characters. If you bult your party so it can collapse the tunnel or sneak instead of fight you should be rewarded for that. Second, why should the harder path be rewarded more? From my point of view, if you face a dilema and your character's abilities open for you two paths to the objective, it's the easiest most efficient one that should be rewarded more. If you are idiot and go for the hard path you deserve to suffer.

Third, and this is the words of Sawyer, gameplay should be fun in itself without the need from the dev to bribe you. If you enjoy combat over selecting a skill check, the act of combat should be reward enough for you without the need for Obsidian to pat you in the back and give you more XP.

 

Again I will go back to Firkraag, you can let him live and that is the easier option, or you can (I'm gonna go full role playing mode here) kill him and stop him from committing any other evil acts. Another example is Dark Souls, do you think that people enjoy the multitude of death and repetitions they experience in the game because they like the fighting, no they enjoy the moments where they defeat the impossible boss, get a huge reward and make progress through the game, that is the same reason why people like impossible fights in IE games. Encourage the easy options, and the game will fail to reach IE standard let alone surpass it.

 

As for Sawyer, why reward the player at all then, remove gold and xp altogether and just make checkpoints where the player gets levels and items. He will get to prove his philosophy with this game I guess, but I wish it was not so. I fell that if Obsidian fail in this game, that will be the end of any true IE successor.

[Malekith]

 

I understand what you mean. I just disagree with many of your points.First of all, not all solutions will be viable for all the characters. If you bult your party so it can collapse the tunnel or sneak instead of fight you should be rewarded for that. Second, why should the harder path be rewarded more? From my point of view, if you face a dilema and your character's abilities open for you two paths to the objective, it's the easiest most efficient one that should be rewarded more. If you are idiot and go for the hard path you deserve to suffer.

Third, and this is the words of Sawyer, gameplay should be fun in itself without the need from the dev to bribe you. If you enjoy combat over selecting a skill check, the act of combat should be reward enough for you without the need for Obsidian to pat you in the back and give you more XP.

 

Again I will go back to Firkraag, you can let him live and that is the easier option, or you can (I'm gonna go full role playing mode here) kill him and stop him from committing any other evil acts. Another example is Dark Souls, do you think that people enjoy the multitude of death and repetitions they experience in the game because they like the fighting, no they enjoy the moments where they defeat the impossible boss, get a huge reward and make progress through the game, that is the same reason why people like impossible fights in IE games. Encourage the easy options, and the game will fail to reach IE standard let alone surpass it.

 

As for Sawyer, why reward the player at all then, remove gold and xp altogether and just make checkpoints where the player gets levels and items. He will get to prove his philosophy with this game I guess, but I wish it was not so. I fell that if Obsidian fail in this game, that will be the end of any true IE successor.

 

If BG2 gave you the option to colapse the cave traping Firkraag inside to stop him from committing any other evil acts, and gave you that 54000 XP just the same it would be a better game. Losing the red dragon scales and Carsomyr would be punishment enough. Plus you miss one of the cooler fights in the game.

[Sarex]

If BG2 gave you the option to colapse the cave traping Firkraag inside to stop him from committing any other evil acts, and gave you that 54000 XP just the same it would be a better game. Losing the red dragon scales and Carsomyr would be punishment enough. Plus you miss one of the cooler fights in the game.

 

Was waiting for someone to mention the items, yeah that would be a loss too but I still think that the xp should not be equal, also that would again be bribing the player, so we can't even expect that if we are to agree with Saywers philosophy.

[Malekith]

 

If BG2 gave you the option to colapse the cave traping Firkraag inside to stop him from committing any other evil acts, and gave you that 54000 XP just the same it would be a better game. Losing the red dragon scales and Carsomyr would be punishment enough. Plus you miss one of the cooler fights in the game.

 

Was waiting for someone to mention the items, yeah that would be a loss too but I still think that the xp should not be equal, also that would again be bribing the player, so we can't even expect that if we are to agree with Saywers philosophy.

 

It's not bribing if it's equal to all options. Killing Firkraag via combat, poisoning his food, collapsing the cave etc. all should give the same XP as they are all ways to deal with the objective " stoping Firkraag". It doesn't matter that killing him in combat is more difficult (and more fun) than the other options. And killing him via poison should still net you the loot, though it should present some dialogue chalenge to convinse him to eat it.

Collapsing the cave should not.

Bribing is when the game has an option that is clearly superior to the others from a metagame point of view. Why should i stealth,bribe,poison etc if killing him gives more XP? That way even someone who don't enjoys combat he would be tempted to suffer through it because the devs bribed him with combat giving more benefits.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Malekith

[Sarex]

It's not bribing if it's equal to all options. Killing Firkraag via combat, poisoning his food, collapsing the cave etc. all should give the same XP as they are all ways to deal with the objective " stoping Firkraag". It doesn't matter that killing him in combat is more difficult (and more fun) than the other options. And killing him via poison should still net you the loot, though it should present some dialogue chalenge to convinse him to eat it.

Collapsing the cave should not.

Bribing is when the game has an option that is clearly superior to the others from a metagame point of view. Why should i stealth,bribe,poison etc if killing him gives more XP? That way even someone who don't enjoys combat he would be tempted to suffer through it because the devs bribed him with combat giving more benefits.

 

But then no one would see the point in reloading the game an x amount of time in order to figure out how to finish a very hard battle, if they can just click through some dialog and end up with the same result, that is just poor game design.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Sarex

[Malekith]

 

It's not bribing if it's equal to all options. Killing Firkraag via combat, poisoning his food, collapsing the cave etc. all should give the same XP as they are all ways to deal with the objective " stoping Firkraag". It doesn't matter that killing him in combat is more difficult (and more fun) than the other options. And killing him via poison should still net you the loot, though it should present some dialogue chalenge to convinse him to eat it.

Collapsing the cave should not.

Bribing is when the game has an option that is clearly superior to the others from a metagame point of view. Why should i stealth,bribe,poison etc if killing him gives more XP? That way even someone who don't enjoys combat he would be tempted to suffer through it because the devs bribed him with combat giving more benefits.

 

But then no one would see the point in reloading the game an x amount of time in order to figure out how to finish a very hard battle, if they can just click through some dialog and end up with the same result, that is just poor game design.

 

I think you are wrong about that.Some people will enjoy the chalenge. And even the rest at some point in the second or third playthrough they will want to beat it at last.

And you forget that the collapse/poison/whatever option won't be viable for all parties. In many cases you won't have the nessesery skills to avoid the combat.

[JFSOCC]

Again, like you don't even read my post, what I said is that collapsing the cave or sneaking past it or talking or running away is easier than a hard fight. What you seem to forget is that this is a game and not the real world. Gameplay wise, all those things take less effort then a hard fight. Also, why are you talking about rewarding a computer character with xp, it is the player who is ultimately being rewarded, and removing that reward is removing the incentive from the player to do anything that requires effort in the game. So no, those things are not anything less in the realm of the mighty hero doing them, but seeing as you are not that hero but a lowly player of a game, then there should be a differentiation for rewarding you in doing something easy and something hard.

 

To finish of, so there isn't any misunderstanding again, it is not about the act of killing or the hero learning or any of the other ridiculous stuff I keep hearing, it is simply about rewarding the player for doing something that is hard to do vs. him taking the easy way out. We are, in the end, not doing a visual novel but a hard core (XD) RPG game.

I get your argument, but there is no reason that alternatives to combat wouldn't have to require equal effort. Maybe convincing said dwarf involves a **** ton of work, and he doesn't like you in the first place. Perhaps you only get the dwarf option after you've done other work before, and the option involving him is a reward in itself.

Maybe, the easier option gives you less XP, but the same loot.

 

There are many ways to balance effort and reward, and I disagree that combat is the only method that would involve effort.

[Malekith]

Think Fallout. you can bypass the final boss battle in three different ways. You can kill him, you can convinse him to suicide because you prove to him that his plan is flawed (but doing so requires 1. To pass various skill ckecks 2. To choose the correct dialogue options 3. To have proof of what you say, with said proof to be an item that you could had  obtained in a completely separate area that again requires skill checks and  it's completely optional. You cannot know that it's in any way importand and many players even if the obtained it they throw it away.) and you can also blow his whole base without even meeting him (but to do so requires a key that it was droped again in a completely separate area that the player may have not visited. And still requires  the correct built to pass the skill check.

 

I could argue that the combat path is the easier one and requires the least effort.

[Elerond]

 

Speaking about BG2 and Firkraag and how hard that fight was. I would say any diplomatic or sneaking options would have needed much more effort than that battle when you prepared right and use cheese tactic same goes for most fight in BG2

[PrimeJunta]

Huh. I didn't even know that one. I used Feeblemind instead and then hacked him to death as he stood there drooling.

[Elerond]

Think Fallout. you can bypass the final boss battle in three different ways. You can kill him, you can convinse him to suicide because you prove to him that his plan is flawed (but doing so requires 1. To pass various skill ckecks 2. To choose the correct dialogue options 3. To have proof of what you say, with said proof to be an item that you could had  obtained in a completely separate area that again requires skill checks and  it's completely optional. You cannot know that it's in any way importand and many players even if the obtained it they throw it away.) and you can also blow his whole base without even meeting him (but to do so requires a key that it was droped again in a completely separate area that the player may have not visited. And still requires  the correct built to pass the skill check.

 

I could argue that the combat path is the easier one and requires the least effort.

 

Or Gecko's Nuclear reactor problem. Killing all ghouls is for most characters much easier option than any of the peaceful solutions that there are, which are quite difficult to accomplish especially "best one" and Modoc is full of difficult peaceful solutions and especially when some of them are actually "worse" than killing people would be.

[jethro]

 

It's not bribing if it's equal to all options. Killing Firkraag via combat, poisoning his food, collapsing the cave etc. all should give the same XP as they are all ways to deal with the objective " stoping Firkraag". ...

But then no one would see the point in reloading the game an x amount of time in order to figure out how to finish a very hard battle, if they can just click through some dialog and end up with the same result, that is just poor game design.

 

Assume you are playing PE. You want combat so you will set difficulty high and put your xp into combat skills. Now, even if you knew there was a way to kill Firkraag by dwarf you never would be able to persuade him with your abominable social skills and you never could execute the thiefing quest the dwarf expects you to do as pre-payment. So YOU only have one option, kill Firkraag yourself. Your only solution is to try and die until you succeed, as you wished.

 

Again I will go back to Firkraag, you can let him live and that is the easier option, or you can (I'm gonna go full role playing mode here) kill him and stop him from committing any other evil acts. Another example is Dark Souls,

Note that Firkraag exists in a game that has kill xp. In an objective xp game avoiding Firkraag completely should not give you XP as well. Only if you deal with Firkraag (ANY way you can) would you get xp for the objective "Deal with Firkraag".

 

Dark Souls is a hack&slash, there is nothing except combat, there are no alternative ways of dealing with enemies, it's a simple combat simulator. Many people would say DS isn't even an RPG because there is no role-play at all (since I only read about DS and not play it I hope I don't misjudge it here), the only RPGish thing seems to be the xp system. There is no need to do an objective based xp system in DS because you don't have different methods to reach an objective. Even if there was an objective based system, you wouldn't even notice because the next objective is always to kill the next enemy!

Edited October 19, 2013 by jethro

[Sarex]

I get your argument, but there is no reason that alternatives to combat wouldn't have to require equal effort. Maybe convincing said dwarf involves a **** ton of work, and he doesn't like you in the first place. Perhaps you only get the dwarf option after you've done other work before, and the option involving him is a reward in itself.

Maybe, the easier option gives you less XP, but the same loot.

 

There are many ways to balance effort and reward, and I disagree that combat is the only method that would involve effort.

 

What you are describing would need to be extremely convoluted to require the same amount of effort and I really doubt it that they have the time to give every quest that treatment. Also if those things are more difficult to accomplish then fighting, you should get more xp for the harder action. I am not a proponent of fighting, but that more difficult actions should garner more xp.

 

-video-

 

Speaking about BG2 and Firkraag and how hard that fight was. I would say any diplomatic or sneaking options would have needed much more effort than that battle when you prepared right and use cheese tactic same goes for most fight in BG2

 

And what did you prove with that video? That you can game the system, you could also type in cheat codes and do it like that. Anyones first playthrough of that fight was hard as balls (of course if you didn't google how to beat him before hand).

 

Huh. I didn't even know that one. I used Feeblemind instead and then hacked him to death as he stood there drooling.

 

Same as above, also you couldn't use Feeblemind on it's own, you needed to lower his magic resist by a **** ton before that would work. This is also a how to guide you can find on google.

 

 

Assume you are playing PE. You want combat so you will set difficulty high and put your xp into combat skills. Now, even if you knew there was a way to kill Firkraag by dwarf you never would be able to persuade him with your abominable social skills and you never could execute the thiefing quest the dwarf expects you to do as pre-payment. So YOU only have one option, kill Firkraag yourself. Your only solution is to try and die until you succeed, as you wished.

 

-

 

Note that Firkraag exists in a game that has kill xp. In an objective xp game avoiding Firkraag completely should not give you XP as well. Only if you deal with Firkraag (ANY way you can) would you get xp for the objective "Deal with Firkraag".

Dark Souls is a hack&slash, there is nothing except combat, there are no alternative ways of dealing with enemies, it's a simple combat simulator. Many people would say DS isn't even an RPG because there is no role-play at all (since I only read about DS and not play it I hope I don't misjudge it here), the only RPGish thing seems to be the xp system. There is no need to do an objective based xp system in DS because you don't have different methods to reach an objective. Even if there was an objective based system, you wouldn't even notice because the next objective is always to kill the next enemy!

 

 

I always max out diplomacy on my main character(Paladin), and I don't think that fighting is the end all be all of IE games, but I consider it to be a much lager part of IE games then people here seem to think.

 

-

 

Point taken. I hope it at least turns out like that.

 

I really didn't like Dark Souls and didn't finish it (the controls where just to clunky for me and I think that is what made the game hard) so I can't attest to what the game is like in it's entirety.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Sarex

[Elerond]

-video-

 

Speaking about BG2 and Firkraag and how hard that fight was. I would say any diplomatic or sneaking options would have needed much more effort than that battle when you prepared right and use cheese tactic same goes for most fight in BG2

 

And what did you prove with that video? That you can game the system, you could also type in cheat codes and do it like that. Anyones first playthrough of that fight was hard as balls (of course if you didn't google how to beat him before hand).

 

You said that getting same amount xp from alternative solution that don't include direct fight confrontation with monster is bad game design as it gives player "easier" way to deal with the problem, but that is actually absolutely false accusation as it is actually good game design in RPGs as it gives players options and ability to play game in way they want to play it and that video show you how bad game design actually looks like (meaning game features that don't work as they are intended to work ).

 

And first time I fight against Firkraag my sorceress killed him with one hit from finger of death and second time my monk killed him with one hit of quivering palm. It wasn't until my third time when I was playing with assassin that  he actually was any sort of difficult woe to fight with.

[Pipyui]

It seems to me that the argument goes that taking the dwarf path and clicking through dialogue is notably easier for certain builds than combat, and thus should reward less XP.  On the one hand I understand the "obstacle removing" argument, but on the other, I also see that rewarding the player for doing, arguably, nothing might be ... a debatable practice (the abstraction is that the PC is doing the work in lieu of the player, which makes sense, but the reality is also that the player is not meeting any challenge.  I don't have any particular opinions on this matter).

 

But I think we're missing the obvious argument that convincing the dwarf in the Firkraag scenario doesn't have to be trivial for the player.  Simply, the dwarf might require a little incentive to help, and this incentive might even take the form of another quest.  This quest could be other combat, stealth, thievery, etc.  This could even allow for quest forks and whatnot.

This way, XP can be granted equal for quest completion, regardless of path, and with player interaction and challenge on either.

[Elerond]

Combat solution is tactical challenge for player

Persuading dwarf to explode the dragons cavern is puzzle solving challenge 

There could be third option that is sneaky option where player plants poison in dragons food, which would also be puzzle solving challenge

And there could be also forth option where you persuade dragon to leave from the lands, and this could be hybrid of puzzle solving and tactical challenges as it would need player collect information which s/he can use to convince the dragon that leaving would be better to him or that leaving is his (dragon's) idea. And to do that player needs to present information what s/he has in right light and right order and so on.

 

So there is challenge in every option which justifies xp gain. And every option will have their own variety in how it effects in story and world and do player get loot or some other rewards like dragon will help him/her later on game etc.. So it isn't like you can fight with dragon or skip fight and get same outcome (reward, story and world wise), but instead there is multiple ways to play game which each has their own challenges and rewards that make your play through different from others, which is just the thing what RPGs should have in them.

[Sarex]

You said that getting same amount xp from alternative solution that don't include direct fight confrontation with monster is bad game design as it gives player "easier" way to deal with the problem, but that is actually absolutely false accusation as it is actually good game design in RPGs as it gives players options and ability to play game in way they want to play it and that video show you how bad game design actually looks like (meaning game features that don't work as they are intended to work ).

 

And first time I fight against Firkraag my sorceress killed him with one hit from finger of death and second time my monk killed him with one hit of quivering palm. It wasn't until my third time when I was playing with assassin that  he actually was any sort of difficult woe to fight with.

 

You are getting cheeky with me, you and I both know that there is a difference betwen gaming a flaw in the system (that can be patched out) and wrong game design at the core of the game. So it is good practice to encourage the player to take the easiest route and reward him the same as for the hard route. Then what is the point of the hard route? From the 6 characters you have one will most likely have the skill set for the easiest solution in any quest.

 

As for you killing Firkraag on your first try, well you either went to him with end game character levels or you got lucky, 99% of the people didn't get lucky.

[Elerond]

 

You said that getting same amount xp from alternative solution that don't include direct fight confrontation with monster is bad game design as it gives player "easier" way to deal with the problem, but that is actually absolutely false accusation as it is actually good game design in RPGs as it gives players options and ability to play game in way they want to play it and that video show you how bad game design actually looks like (meaning game features that don't work as they are intended to work ).

 

And first time I fight against Firkraag my sorceress killed him with one hit from finger of death and second time my monk killed him with one hit of quivering palm. It wasn't until my third time when I was playing with assassin that  he actually was any sort of difficult woe to fight with.

 

You are getting cheeky with me, you and I both know that there is a difference betwen gaming a flaw in the system (that can be patched out) and wrong game design at the core of the game. So it is good practice to encourage the player to take the easiest route and reward him the same as for the hard route. Then what is the point of the hard route? From the 6 characters you have one will most likely have the skill set for the easiest solution in any quest.

 

As for you killing Firkraag on your first try, well you either went to him with end game character levels or you got lucky, 99% of the people didn't get lucky.

 

 

99% people didn't even find him . With spells and abilities that have chance to instakill you need to be bit lucky, but as game has resistance drop spells that which add you killing change to near  100% they don't actually need that much luck.

 

Flawed game system is bad game design, giving option for player in RPG is not, especially if those options effect how story and world reacts towards pc.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Elerond