Let's Not Have Everyone Level At Once

[Kjaamor]

This isn't a particularly long one, because the title really says it all.

 

In BG, classes had different experience requirements for each level. This meant that those level ups were generally spread around and didn't all occur at the same time.

 

By contrast, in NVN2, experience demands were standardised, and everyone levelled at the same time.

 

Given that levelling up is one of the major gameplay rewards of rpgs, I always felt that the BG system was more rewarding and offered more of a "I'll just play one more hour..." encouragement to keep playing. I understand that exp will be quest driven rather than kill driven (for which I'm glad), but I still feel it would offer more incentive to keep going if party levelling was staggered.

 

Thoughts?

[Sarex]

This isn't a particularly long one, because the title really says it all.

 

In BG, classes had different experience requirements for each level. This meant that those level ups were generally spread around and didn't all occur at the same time.

 

By contrast, in NVN2, experience demands were standardised, and everyone levelled at the same time.

 

Given that levelling up is one of the major gameplay rewards of rpgs, I always felt that the BG system was more rewarding and offered more of a "I'll just play one more hour..." encouragement to keep playing. I understand that exp will be quest driven rather than kill driven (for which I'm glad), but I still feel it would offer more incentive to keep going if party levelling was staggered.

 

Thoughts?

 

You do know why they had a different xp requirement? It was balancing issues, so for it to be transferred to P:E just for the sake of transferring it would cause balance issues. Also, I don't really see how it would serve to drive the player to play more, the difference between on kill and quest xp is that you have to finish a quest to get xp. So there wouldn't really be a case of the player thinking "just a little more to get that little bit of xp", but "I need to finish another quest to level up all my characters".

 

If the balancing requires it, then sure make different classes have different xp requirements, but if it's just for the sake of it, I don't see any point in it.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Sarex

[Prometheus]

Thoughts?

I'm against different classes/races with different xp tables. In my opinion, you shouldn't use the level of a class/race for balancing. A class shouldn'nt be inferior to another class on the same level in all situations.

 

If you don't want to make everyone level up at once, don't let the companions start with the same amount of xp (Dragon Age Origins did this). e.g. if you have 250xp the companion Adam has 500 xp and if you have 1000xp Adam will still have 500xp.

 

Josh Sawyer made a comment about disadvantages for absolute/level parity, so maybe not all characters will level up together. see quote below:

 

There are a few reasons why I don't think absolute XP/level parity across all potential companions is always a good thing.

 

In a class-based game, how you learn to use the classes (specifically, their abilities) often develops over the course of playing them. When characters who aren't in the party auto-gain XP and you level them in big jumps, the characters can often gain numerous abilities simultaneously. This can make it harder to "get" the significance of the individual abilities. It can also demand that the player make a series of choices in immediate succession without realizing how each of the individual choices may interact.

 

If all characters are perfectly XP-locked to each other, when it's time to level up one character, it's time to level up all of the characters. IMO, this can be bad for pacing and it's asking the player to make strategic decisions for all of their party members at once.

 

There is a strategic element to whom you take and whom you leave behind. I don't believe that unused party members should sit stagnant; I just think that there are pacing and learning advantages to staggering them somewhat. If a player uses the stronghold system to manage characters when they aren't in the party, they can have full XP parity if the player wants them to. If you choose to not use the stronghold at all, the folks at the stronghold will trail in XP somewhat, but not a margin of many levels.

[Iucounu]

I don't think I care much about different xp tables. In general, I think it can be interesting if certain classes gain power faster or slower than other classes, at certain stages, but still, not a must have. 

However, absolute XP parity is something I'd consider as inherently bad (although I've become careful with such an evaluation, considering all the game theorists that roam this site). Just strikes me as boring and artificial. It's only natural that you encounter partymembers with different experience levels during your travels. At BG it was always nice if you encountered a wizard or a fighter who happened to be one level above the rest of the group. I think that's more interesting than absolute homogeneity.

 

The only disadvantage I could think of would be that the game might be harder to balance that way. 

[JFSOCC]

As long as level caps are equal for all classes, and class power is approximately equal for each level to all the other classes.

[Karkarov]

You do know why they had a different xp requirement? It was balancing issues, so for it to be transferred to P:E just for the sake of transferring it would cause balance issues.

Uh no that wasn't why.  It was because those games are based on D&D.  In D&D 2nd Edition (aka the rule set Baldur's Gate is based on) every class had their own EXP table.  Some classes leveled fast and maintained that pace like Rogues, some leveled fast early then ran into huge EXP walls later on like Druids, and some were just stable like Fighters.  In D&D 3rd Edition (the rules NWN is based on) there was no more class based EXP, everyone leveled at the same rate based on the same EXP table.

 

To be honest I see no reason for separate EXP per class.  As long as everyone gets a reasonably similar amount of growth per level it should be the same for everyone.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Karkarov

[Hassat Hunter]

The OP got a point... I would agree spreading out XP so not everyone levels up at the same time.

Wheter due to different XP-requirements or by having their XP start at a different level from each other and the PC doesn't really matter that much in that regard...

[IndiraLightfoot]

Interesting subject: I find myself saying that I really enjoy having characters level up in an dyssynchronous (word?) manner. One flaw in my experience of NWN2, which I adore, was certainly that. Perhaps some mathematical wizkid can come up with small checks on how much each party member contributed to various solutions of events and encounters during a particular quest. it won't be the most transparent system, and perhaps that's good, I dunno?

[Sarex]

Uh no that wasn't why.  It was because those games are based on D&D.  In D&D 2nd Edition (aka the rule set Baldur's Gate is based on) every class had their own EXP table.  Some classes leveled fast and maintained that pace like Rogues, some leveled fast early then ran into huge EXP walls later on like Druids, and some were just stable like Fighters.  In D&D 3rd Edition (the rules NWN is based on) there was no more class based EXP, everyone leveled at the same rate based on the same EXP table.

 

To be honest I see no reason for separate EXP per class.  As long as everyone gets a reasonably similar amount of growth per level it should be the same for everyone.

 

 

Uh, yes it is. You think D&D didn't have to balance it's classes and just did it because they liked to complicate things?

[rjshae]

If the characters start out with different base XPs, then they are bound to level up at different times... at least at lower levels. Thus the developers could varying the starting XP appropriately to encourage this effect. I.e. level = PC level, plus or minus some fraction of the XP needed.

 

Ed.: oops, I see this has already been suggested.

Edited November 6, 2013 by rjshae

[Kjaamor]

Whilst the means to achieving the end don't particularly matter to me, the characters starting with different base XPs isn't a particularly elegant solution because it either fades and disappears with age (in increasing exp) or exp for quests doesn't increase and you allow a huge disparity of levels between parties for the endgame. I wouldn't suggest that is a particularly good idea either.

 

You do know why they had a different xp requirement? It was balancing issues, so for it to be transferred to P:E just for the sake of transferring it would cause balance issues. Also, I don't really see how it would serve to drive the player to play more, the difference between on kill and quest xp is that you have to finish a quest to get xp. So there wouldn't really be a case of the player thinking "just a little more to get that little bit of xp", but "I need to finish another quest to level up all my characters".

 

If the balancing requires it, then sure make different classes have different xp requirements, but if it's just for the sake of it, I don't see any point in it.

 

No-one is suggesting that arbitrary exp requirements from a seperate game be blindly carried over into another without any concern for their impact upon balance.

 

In Fallout 2, some quests gave 10,000 exp, some 100exp. That exp comes from quests rather than kills makes absolutely no difference to the "just a little more to get that little bit of xp".

[Lephys]

You could always emulate the PnP system of the DM/GM granting various little XP nuggets for various things. Well, emulate it to a degree. So that, if you complete a quest, and your Ranger helped you spot all the guards on a wall, he gets an extra 100xp or something. By the time everyone's awarded XP, even if the brunt of the quest gives everyone 500, some might end up with 650, some with 550, some with 700, etc.

 

Then, in a different quest, there's going to be the potential for different bonuses, so the Ranger might not have much to do with his particular skillset and capabilities, while some other character gets a bit more boost, still all depending on what you do.

 

It would still keep everyone pretty close (By level 15 or so, you MIGHT have someone at about a full level above someone else, maximum), but would still offer dynamic moments of actually leveling.

 

It IS pretty nice when you don't go from "my entire party is level 4" one encounter, to "my entire party has all new skills and abilities, and has gained a collective total of about 60 points in things" in the next encounter. You either end up with a HUGE drop in the difficulty of encounters, or you try to plan for the encounters to match the party's level, so that any fluctuation in optional XP gains will result in the party NOT hitting the next level, but still hitting that "this encounter assumes you hit the next level" encounter, which would be bad...

 

*shrug*. Just me thoughts.

[Kaczor]

Uh, yes it is. You think D&D didn't have to balance it's classes and just did it because they liked to complicate things?

It was not due to the balance (or it has not been done right at least). Fighter has faster low level progression (let's say from 1st to 5th level) than Mage while already being much more powerful. Surprisingly past 5th level, when the power of Mage skyrockets, the situation becomes quite opposite.

 

I prefer assynchronous level ups, as it spreads party power gain over time. The idea of differentiating starting exp sounds better to me than messing with progression tables. The former may not have much impact on endgame, but it is not that important then whatsoever. I belive that ICWD 2 has showed the necessity of preventing simultaneous level up - getting six-man party to new level at once is game-changing in early stages.

[Karkarov]

Uh, yes it is. You think D&D didn't have to balance it's classes and just did it because they liked to complicate things?

Yes, I know for a fact they liked to complicate things.

 

Did you know in D&D 2nd Edition there were rules in the DMG for creating custom classes.  Just to prove to you how borked their idea of class balance and exp scaling was you could do fun experiments.  For example, if you created an exact replica of the Fighter class you actually needed more exp to level per level than a by the book fighter did.  The Rogue actually needed ever so slightly less, and the Mage was totally out of place.  Paladins had insane stat requirements and massive exp walls but other than some immunities and lay on hands were actually worse in most fights than a generic Fighter.

 

To say D&D is a poorly balanced game is the understatement of the day.  But their EXP system in 2nd Edition was completely borked regardless.

[Lephys]

Heh... well, the thing about D&D is, any imbalance in the rules COULD be corrected by the DM. You had an actual person there, thinking, on-the-fly, about everything that was happening, and going "okay, it says you're supposed to roll and get loot from THIS table, but I don't think you should have an Axe of the DemonSlayer +12 at level 3, so... we're gonna tweak that rule and I'm going to restrict you to a different loot table, because reason."

 

That's why the problems are so much more evident when a hard-coded RPG's rule-enforcement tries to emulate the exact same system, devoid of on-the-fly human tweaking. 8P

 

The D&D rules (some versions more than others) have always been a pretty good foundation for PnP gaming with a human DM, but definitely aren't the most perfectly balanced systems for translating straight into a video game.

[Silent Winter]

I don't want everyone to level-up at once because, as Josh said, it's a pain (and pace-stopping) to go through and make all those decisions at once.

I'd prefer a close but not exact level-up range.  Perhaps, as Lephys suggested, by having slight xp-bonuses here and there for different characters.

[forgottenlor]

I also don't like different class tables. However, I would be for an xp penalty for characters buying some sort of advantage. However, this leads to balancing issues and I'm not sure how easy it would be to implement. Example: Your character has amazing hand to eye coordination and gets a bonus to mechanics and "Dexterity" or whatever stat is similar but must pay a 5% xp penalty.

[Greydragon]

I would imagine multi-class/dual-class characters (if any) would also suffer xp penalty and cause a similar asynchrony.

[JFSOCC]

dyssynchronous (word?)

Asynchronous

 

anyway, from what I understand it's already in the game. You can level companions through tasks at the stronghold

Edited November 7, 2013 by JFSOCC

[rjshae]

Personally I'm okay with handling multiple level-ups at once. But they could add an option to do random level-ups in Expert mode. Basically, each character receives a random seed between 0% and, say, 25%. When the character reaches that (hidden) percentage of XP toward the next level, then they are able to level up. As an added option, the player could go to some designated location and level up the character right away.

[Sarex]

Yes, I know for a fact they liked to complicate things.

 

Did you know in D&D 2nd Edition there were rules in the DMG for creating custom classes.  Just to prove to you how borked their idea of class balance and exp scaling was you could do fun experiments.  For example, if you created an exact replica of the Fighter class you actually needed more exp to level per level than a by the book fighter did.  The Rogue actually needed ever so slightly less, and the Mage was totally out of place.  Paladins had insane stat requirements and massive exp walls but other than some immunities and lay on hands were actually worse in most fights than a generic Fighter.

 

To say D&D is a poorly balanced game is the understatement of the day.  But their EXP system in 2nd Edition was completely borked regardless.

 

Maybe they failed in the balancing of the classes, but to say that xp tables where different just for the sake of complicating things doesn't ring true to me.

[Quetzalcoatl]

If the companions start at differing experience levels, they will probably end up leveling at different times anyway. The NWN2 system was rather odd in that it scaled everyone to the same level as soon as they joined the party.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Quetzalcoatl

[Kaczor]

 

Yes, I know for a fact they liked to complicate things.

 

Did you know in D&D 2nd Edition there were rules in the DMG for creating custom classes.  Just to prove to you how borked their idea of class balance and exp scaling was you could do fun experiments.  For example, if you created an exact replica of the Fighter class you actually needed more exp to level per level than a by the book fighter did.  The Rogue actually needed ever so slightly less, and the Mage was totally out of place.  Paladins had insane stat requirements and massive exp walls but other than some immunities and lay on hands were actually worse in most fights than a generic Fighter.

 

To say D&D is a poorly balanced game is the understatement of the day.  But their EXP system in 2nd Edition was completely borked regardless.

 

Maybe they failed in the balancing of the classes, but to say that xp tables where different just for the sake of complicating things doesn't ring true to me.

AD&D, Dungeon Master's Guide, Chapter 3, Creating New Character Classes:

You can't reconstruct the existing character classes using this method. The standard classes give players advantages over custom-designed classes. Standard class characters advance in levels more quickly and, generally, have better abilities than custom-designed characters.

 

AD&D, Player's Handbook, Chapter 3, Class Descriptions:

Experience Points measure what a character has learned and how he has improved his skill during the course of his adventures. Characters earn experience points by completing adventures and by doing things specifically related to their class. A fighter, for example, earns more experience for charging and battling a monster than does a thief, because the fighter's training emphasizes battle while thief's emphasizes stealth and cleverness.

 

So... Thief needs less XP, because he is less likely to encounter class related challenge. Sounds reasonable, but it's doubtful that many DMs reward players differently due to character class (and no game does that). Besides these tables often have some background story behind (druid is the best example).

[Sarex]

 

AD&D, Dungeon Master's Guide, Chapter 3, Creating New Character Classes:

You can't reconstruct the existing character classes using this method. The standard classes give players advantages over custom-designed classes. Standard class characters advance in levels more quickly and, generally, have better abilities than custom-designed characters.

 

AD&D, Player's Handbook, Chapter 3, Class Descriptions:

Experience Points measure what a character has learned and how he has improved his skill during the course of his adventures. Characters earn experience points by completing adventures and by doing things specifically related to their class. A fighter, for example, earns more experience for charging and battling a monster than does a thief, because the fighter's training emphasizes battle while thief's emphasizes stealth and cleverness.

 

So... Thief needs less XP, because he is less likely to encounter class related challenge. Sounds reasonable, but it's doubtful that many DMs reward players differently due to character class (and no game does that). Besides these tables often have some background story behind (druid is the best example).

 

What you described is a balancing of the classes according to how to book assumes the game is being played. That no one is doing it like that is another matter. My point was that the creators of the book did xp tables for a reason, not just to make the game more "complex".

[Kaczor]

I have tried to argue for Your thesis, not against it, Sarex. Getting back on topic - wouldn't it be nice to have personal XP rewards for class-specific tasks? It would alter level-up time for different classes and prevent whole-party upgrade.