On PE difficulty mechanics, objective xp and combat, stealth, sweet-talking

[Lephys]

Exactly, you shouldn't have posed the question in an exaggerated manner. And there was no confusion on my side. I can see through these straw man arguments. And now you ask another exaggerated question. Where have I stated that the main priority of Josh's design process is to ensure that no degenerate gameplay exists, ever?

I didn't say you did. It wasn't a strawman. It was a question. You said this:

 

Degenerate gameplay will always be in games like this and there will be players who use it. I don't see how Josh can get rid of it totally.

And, either you're just arbitrarily pointing out the irrelevant fact that Josh can't "get rid of it totally," or you were suggesting that was somehow his goal. Thus, I asked if you could provide some proof that that was his goal. It was a simple yes-or-no question.

 

The fact is the dragon can't be killed with one hit and it's not easily dispatched with the spell.

Again, I'm not going to accuse you of strawmannery, and instead will just assume you feel like arbitrarily stating facts that I didn't argue, but not in argument to me. Because I literally just said this:

 

I distinctly declared the condition of the developers not wanting the dragon to be killed in one hit (not counting the application of the Harm spell as a "hit" -- I guess I should just say "damaging hit" to be most precise), it isn't functioning as intended.

... Which you even quoted. So, thank you for that bit of trivia, I guess.

 

It requires a lot of effort to pull it off.

No it doesn't. All it requires is that you move a Cleric to melee range, click an ability button, then select a target. The rest is up to RNG in the computer. Unless you've got a mod installed that requires extreme exertion on your part, like... a hand-crank that keeps your CPU going while you play? Or a realllllllly big mouse button.

 

... the chances are very small...

... of it being one of the most effective things you could possibly do to a giant dragon.

 

LMAO. Harm isn't hard to pull off with a dragon? Fraps your battle and show us. More fuzzy logic with the rest of your reply.

I don't have to. I'm sure someone's already posted a video clip, online, of their battle, in which they landed Harm on the first attempt. Boom. Click... click... click. Done.

 

How can you potentially kill something in 2 turns, then say "that was really hard"? If that's hard, then what's easy?

 

So you're going to replace your Heal spells with Harm spells? One of the most beneficial spells in the game is going to be replaced with one of the most unreliable tactics in the game due to your characters ability to hit with it. Talk about theory crafting going into the stratosphere.

If Harm works, you don't need any heal spells, because 1 turn later, there's no dragon around to damage you. Then you can just rest up and get all your heal spells back.

 

Yep, our healers are now frontline fighters with very little or no Heal spells because Lephys seems to think it's a viable option.

Oh man. I didn't even think of that! Imagine if you had 6 Clerics! All armed to the teeth with Harm! Well, you'd probably want one Warrior or something, for the best chance to actually deliver the killing blow.

 

It's not a statistically good idea. It's a statistically bad idea. The fact is it doesn't allow it to be a ridiculously easy fight, since trying to pull it off is hard. It's still a tough fight to use Harm because of all the variables you have to put in place. It's harder to pull off Harm than by using your normal tactics against dragons and you should be rewarded for that.

Requiring a certain build and certain feats/stats is not difficulty. Was it hard to allocate points when you leveled up, to support a "more likely to Harm a dragon to near-death" build? That's not difficulty. It's easy to do. Putting those factors in place isn't any harder than putting any OTHER sets of factors in place. The only difference is that, when you choose to put those factors in place, you can deal one point less than a dragon's entire health in damage in a single attack, as opposed to not even having that option.

 

"You keep saying that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Lephys]

Skill Based. Like all melee. Stop splitting hairs.

Really? So, you can click on a target more skillfully than I can, and cause the results to be a hit more often than I can, using the same mouse and the same character?

 

Who the hell's splitting hairs? You're the one who keeps trying to arbitrarily correct things. There's not even a technicality here. Attack rolls are dice rolls, and dice rolls are luck. The fact that you have a weapon "skill" in the game that affects your luck-based dice roll doesn't somehow make the dice roll not-luck-based.

 

In the meantime, Harm requires the cleric to successfully cast it. Then successfully score a hit (harder to do than a fighter). Then it must defeat the dragon's Magic resistance. That's 3 major hurdles. In a dragon fight, this can often be too big a risk on its own, and the deciding factor when coming up with a strategy.

So, in Iron Man mode, it wouldn't be a good choice at all. Or if you're just personally challenging yourself to never fail the fight before succeeding. I get that. It's still illogical. How roundabout of a method is it to simply reduce the chances of something happening to a really tiny percent, thus still allowing it to occur, if you want to make something not viable? Because, like I said, it's not really no longer viable. It's probably not viable. As long as it bypasses those hurdles (which COULD happen, through no act of skill, but rather, pure luck), it's TOTALLY viable. Hell, so long as you had a Cleric with the spell, you'd be remiss not to try it at least ONCE during the fight. One possibly wasted spell slot, versus the chance to end the fight in 2 turns?

 

That's the problem with letting chance run wild. It serves a great purpose, and is useful in many ways, but "I want this to be difficult, and thus I'll just split it between really difficult and extremely easy based on chance" isn't a very sound idea, really.

 

You wouldn't have an ability that has a .1% chance of you simply beating the game, right? Because you have absolutely no intention for a single ability use to produce such results, regardless of the slimness of the chance. Which is why we just have chancical things like critical hits. If you get a critical hit, then you make a little more progress than you would've on a regular hit. You don't just reach a certain milestone, no matter what.

 

That's what people don't seem to get. You can miss with an attack, instead of hit, so that there's a dynamic to which you must react, instead of just guaranteedly producing a desired result every single time you choose to, and just doing the math on how to efficiently produce enough damage to kill something in the fewest turns. Spell saves and chance-based misses/fails on attacks are there to represent defense, not to serve as something against which to balance the effect of the ability/attack in the first place.

 

"Nothing" is literally the least amount of effect something can have. You can't justify somehow trying to come up with a possible effect that somehow counter-balances with "nothing," or you'd just end up with infinity.

 

It's the whole reason we establish the system in the first place. There's hitpoints, and there's damage. Then there's "Haha, I don't even care about hitpoints or damage, because I just circumvent the entire point of that system by producing some absolute effect that's only limited by the amount of HP I have to remove."

[Stun]

Really? So, you can click on a target more skillfully than I can, and cause the results to be a hit more often than I can, using the same mouse and the same character?

If we're using the same character, then the skill needed to score a hit will be exactly the same. The IE games are not twitch based systems, btw. The skill we're talking about is the character's skill, not the player's. Although, the player's skill is still a factor. as a skillful player, I'll know the best buffs to use to augment my character's to-hit score.

 

 

Who the hell's splitting hairs? You're the one who keeps trying to arbitrarily correct things.

I'm not being arbitrary, or pedantic. Your arguments are fundamentally erroneous. Consistently.

 

 

There's not even a technicality here. Attack rolls are dice rolls, and dice rolls are luck.

Melee is skill based. Luck is only 1 minor factor here. Especially in the IE games where high level fighters with their +5 weapons can have Thaco's in the negatives.

 

 

So, in Iron Man mode, it wouldn't be a good choice at all. Or if you're just personally challenging yourself to never fail the fight before succeeding. I get that. It's still illogical.

 

How roundabout of a method is it to simply reduce the chances of something happening to a really tiny percent, thus still allowing it to occur, if you want to make something not viable? Because, like I said, it's not really no longer viable. It's probably not viable. As long as it bypasses those hurdles (which COULD happen, through no act of skill, but rather, pure luck), it's TOTALLY viable. Hell, so long as you had a Cleric with the spell, you'd be remiss not to try it at least ONCE during the fight. One possibly wasted spell slot, versus the chance to end the fight in 2 turns?

I agree. But, Lets make one thing clear here. I'm not claiming that Harm is "unviable period". I'm just saying that against a dragon, Harm is less viable than a melee attack from a good Fighter, or a buffed up cleric. But even then, there are ways to make Harm the single most viable attack in the cleric's arsenal against Dragons. But it requires pre-buffing, assistance from the rest of the party, and decent planning.

 

In fact, with the right build, and the right preparation, you can eliminate ALL luck. I did a BG2 run with a multi-classed Cleric-Mage. And I soloed a Dragon. During a Time Stop, I unleashed a spell trigger with 3x lower resistance, and then I cast Harm. That's an instant win against a dragon, Since a prepared spell trigger is uninterruptable, and 3x lower resistance will remove All of a dragon's Magic resistance, and all attacks are automatic hits during a time stop. This fulfills all the requirements to make Harm a Guaranteed effect against a dragon.

 

Again, like I told you a year ago when we had this discussion, The system you're trying to criticize is Vast. There are ways around EVERYTHING. The Loopholes have loopholes. And that's what makes BG2 (for example) so fun. And so amazingly replayable.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I didn't say you did. It wasn't a strawman. It was a question. You said this:

 

Degenerate gameplay will always be in games like this and there will be players who use it. I don't see how Josh can get rid of it totally.

And, either you're just arbitrarily pointing out the irrelevant fact that Josh can't "get rid of it totally," or you were suggesting that was somehow his goal. Thus, I asked if you could provide some proof that that was his goal. It was a simple yes-or-no question.

 

Yes you did. Stop lying. You suggested that I said it was his sole goal in life. I caught you out on that straw man argument.  Then you change it to being I suggested it was his main priority with his design process which I never did. I caught you out on that straw man argument again. Neither of which I said was the case. And now you're changing your stance again. Nothing worse than someone making up an argument on the run, changing their stance when they continually get caught out and denying what they've said. Now you're changing the question again and suggesting this is what you asked originally. So yeah, if you're going to quote me, then stop asking exaggerated questions and using straw man tactics.

 

 

 

Again, I'm not going to accuse you of strawmannery, and instead will just assume you feel like arbitrarily stating facts that I didn't argue, but not in argument to me. Because I literally just said this:

 

I distinctly declared the condition of the developers not wanting the dragon to be killed in one hit (not counting the application of the Harm spell as a "hit" -- I guess I should just say "damaging hit" to be most precise), it isn't functioning as intended.

... Which you even quoted. So, thank you for that bit of trivia, I guess.

 

 

Nice selective quoting, because you also said this: "The fact that they allowed it just means that they did it wrong, not that they wanted you to kill the dragon in 1 hit." in the same block of text I quoted. Again, you can't kill a dragon with one hit.

 

 

No it doesn't. All it requires is that you move a Cleric to melee range, click an ability button, then select a target. The rest is up to RNG in the computer. Unless you've got a mod installed that requires extreme exertion on your part, like... a hand-crank that keeps your CPU going while you play? Or a realllllllly big mouse button.

 

 

Absolute BS. But not surprising coming from someone who's never tried it. Anyone can tell you it's not up to moving your cleric up to a dragon, clisking on it and it's up to the RNG gods. Now you're just making yourself look like someone who knows nothing about this, arguing from something you have no knowledge or experience about. But keep on dreaming.

 

... of it being one of the most effective things you could possibly do to a giant dragon.

 

 

One of the most effective things is not to use this tactic, because you'll no doubt get your arse handed to you.

 

I don't have to. I'm sure someone's already posted a video clip, online, of their battle, in which they landed Harm on the first attempt. Boom. Click... click... click. Done.

 

How can you potentially kill something in 2 turns, then say "that was really hard"? If that's hard, then what's easy?

 

 

Here we go. It's so easy according to Lephys but Lephys can't do it. And wants other people to do it for him, and then post it on Youtube. As said I before, it's not Boom. Click... click... click. Done. But keeping believing that. It's hard because there are many variables to pull it off and it takes a lot of skill to get all those variables working together. One small mistake by the player and it won't work.

 

 

If Harm works, you don't need any heal spells, because 1 turn later, there's no dragon around to damage you. Then you can just rest up and get all your heal spells back.

 

And if it doesn't work which it probably won't, you have no Heal spells for the rest of the encounter. Yeah, good gameplay tactics... not.

 

 

Oh man. I didn't even think of that! Imagine if you had 6 Clerics! All armed to the teeth with Harm! Well, you'd probably want one Warrior or something, for the best chance to actually deliver the killing blow.

 

And you would die in the first round or two if you relied on Harm for a 6 Cleric party . Shows you're not speaking from gameplay experience. Keep up that theory crafting BS.

 

Requiring a certain build and certain feats/stats is not difficulty. Was it hard to allocate points when you leveled up, to support a "more likely to Harm a dragon to near-death" build? That's not difficulty. It's easy to do. Putting those factors in place isn't any harder than putting any OTHER sets of factors in place. The only difference is that, when you choose to put those factors in place, you can deal one point less than a dragon's entire health in damage in a single attack, as opposed to not even having that option.

 

"You keep saying that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."   

 

WTF? How can you support a "more likely to Harm a dragon to near-death build?". That doesn't even make sense. Can you show us what a "more likely to Harm a dragon to near-death build" is, because I would really like to see this. I want to see this "Near-Death Dragon Slaying Cleric" compared to other normal clerics that can cast Harm. Considering you said it's easy to do this build.

 

Yes Lephys, this quote is for you: "You keep saying that word... I do not think it means what you think it means." 

       

[tajerio]

People who don't agree on a fundamental level are probably better off just not arguing with each other.  And certainly no one else is being convinced by the occasionally vituperative walls of text.

[Silent Winter]

First up - only quoting part of this for time but I'll reply to the Q about all wilderness encounters needing a "warning, story, quest-giver, etc"

Nope - I should hope they don't all need one. ... not sure what that's got to do with it though - you can easily resolve situations that aren't quests and be given XP for resolving the situation by the game. (e.g. Found a campsite: Exploration XP 600) (even though to get to the campsite you needed to somehow deal with a bunch of wild wolves, by combat or other method).

 

The fact that you don't get xp for the combat isn't inherently bad -  You can do something via combat and get xp for it, or you can do it another way and get xp for it. 

If you choose to always take the 'easy' way, then sometimes you'll be dealing with combat and sometimes with stealth (depending on your party makeup). 

If you choose to always do things the combat way, then more combat. 

If you choose to always try things the dialogue way then you'll sometimes avoid fights and sometimes have them anyway.

The aforementioned wolves might not be chatty and might have large detection circles for stealth, making combat the easier choice.  (or not) - either way, your playstyle is rewarded.

 

2) When your party travels to the world map, they might have the following options:
   a) Wander around until they encounter an enemy (BG approach)
   b) The ranger or druid discovers animal tracks which reveal that the creatures making these are somehow "suspicious"
   c) The druid speaks to an animal which is concerned that the new arrivals are somehow unnatural
3) The party tracks down an enemy:
   a) the enemy in this wilderness encounter are agitated wolves, the ranger or druid decide to calm the animals down (create additional objectives)
   b) the enemy is a group of Ogres and they cannot be reasoned with. After defeating them, a skill or talent check reveals that they have been acting on the orders of an Ogre Mage (create additional objectives)
4) The party having found the location of the Ogre Mage defeat him
AND/OR
5) The party do not find any evidence of anything unusual
6) The forester is informed
7) If the party did not find foul play, the forester and villagers return to logging, a week later, they all get slaughtered. Party receives news of this and return to the wilderness area where they now encounter and defeat the Ogre Mage.
 
There are still XP rewards, its just how much XP is awarded, depends on whether your party simply killed some monsters, or went further and took an investigative approach.

But from your examples, the party's not getting XP for killing the ogres, the party is getting XP for employing a variety of of non-combat skills.

That's right - they're not directly getting xp for killing the ogres - they're getting xp for playing the game and killing the ogres is only one essential part of doing that (in the above example).  They're employing a variety of non-combat and combat skills.

He wasn't arguing (I think) that you will get xp for killing, just that the xp you're getting includes killing.

 

Also agree that the bandit / bounty-hunter / etc groups you encounter are indeed a fun part of BG1.  I would consider overcoming one such group to be an 'objective' and thusly rewarded with xp (even though it's not a 'quest').  Doesn't mean you need xp for felling each individual and levelling up mid-battle.

I too would like clarification from the devs as to what 'objective xp' means - is it only 'given quests' or (as I assume) 'doing stuff' including overcoming obstacles/solving puzzles/etc.

 

Now, in PE you may well come across wandering monsters while exploring, kill them, and receive no xp.  BUT, if you don't kill them, they kill you -> benefit to killing them   Not going near them means you can't explore that area and miss out on finding useful stuff and/or other xp from finding other things (like a campsite/cave/caravan of merchants being attacked) -> detriment to not fighting.

'Stealth' for your entire party may or may not be possible in this situation depending on monster type, party makeup and skill-allocation.  If you focus your party on stealth, you may get more benefit from using it, if you focus your party on combat feats, you'll get better at the combat approach.  Combat will still be essential at times though (I'm guessing the final boss won't be persuaded to just give up - Fallout did this to good effect though, you could play a combat game or a stealth game or a talky game there).

[Azmodan]

 

He wasn't arguing (I think) that you will get xp for killing, just that the xp you're getting includes killing.

 

 

Hi Silent Winter, you are correct - I believe that XP for killing should be awarded, when it is in context. Killing without context needs alternative rewards - e.g. lewtz lolololololetc.

The best way to look at any encounter that prompts the player to "kill", is to substitute the word with "neutralise". XP thereafter is allocated on the challenge rating of the encounter.

Bandit encounters I already dealt with ~3 pages back. I don't see how any of the above negates the appearance of bandit encounters in PoE, random wandering Ogres etc.

 

In PnP, even when exploring the wilderness, players usually have an objective. I haven't had a single session as a GM or a player, where the players ploughed on through random wilderness in a northerly direction for days, "just because". I hope that PoE does contain wilderness areas like BG1 did, with nothing but wild animals and a wondering Ogre... But if I have a druid or ranger in my party, I want an option in addition to "kill".

 

What Stun does not appear to understand at the core, is that ADnD gave flat XP rewards and these encourage random encounter / wilderness encounter grinding (i.e. where mobs respawn, such as wilderness areas in BG1). Creating an infinite XP pool to harvest will unbalance game progression, making encounter design and staging less predictable.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 I believe that XP for killing should be awarded, when it is in context. Killing without context needs alternative rewards - e.g. lewtz lolololololetc.

The best way to look at any encounter that prompts the player to "kill", is to substitute the word with "neutralise". XP thereafter is allocated on the challenge rating of the encounter.

 

In PnP, even when exploring the wilderness, players usually have an objective. I haven't had a single session as a GM or a player, where the players ploughed on through random wilderness in a northerly direction for days, "just because". I hope that PoE does contain wilderness areas like BG1 did, with nothing but wild animals and a wondering Ogre... But if I have a druid or ranger in my party, I want an option in addition to "kill".

 

ADnD gave flat XP rewards and these encourage random encounter / wilderness encounter grinding (i.e. where mobs respawn, such as wilderness areas in BG1). Creating an infinite XP pool to harvest will unbalance game progression, making encounter design and staging less predictable.

 

 I can totally play a game like the one you delineate above, no problem! But is it the best game possible for PE? I'm not so sure.

Lets' see now:

I agree that all xp has to be contextual, but not by your definition of context - the players "have an objective". I reckon that a computer game is slightly different than PnP, and that if its areas are rightly and richly designed, they can accommodate all kinds of exploration and choices, and not just parties commuting between quest givers. I really hope this is the way PE will be designed. My worst fear would be DS3 in this regard, it was far too linear and the choices weren't really many, and usually only bound to text lines in dialogue trees.

If my party stumbles upon three trolls, a few short guys and some ponnies, and then I kill this weird bunch for RP-reasons, this should be rewarded with xp as an accomplishment (no need for some quest linked to it). And here I wish that we drop the "objective xp" concept from now on and stick to Tim Cain's "accomplishment xp" (let's abbreviate it "axp"). Btw, my example was of course deliberate, as most of the valuable experiences Bilbo and his dwarven companions acquired weren't quest-based, but haphazard stuff and bad (good?) timing. Even my PnP-sessions with players, most of them ends up digressing from the obvious paths and objectives, even main quests, and instead we find ourselves in adventures that weren't really planned. And this does not entail a party going northwards for days (that sounds like my first playthrough in Daggerfall). Several cases in BG1 felt like that - real roleplaying. It was rather PnP-like, and I loved it.

AD&D's "flat" xp rewards didn't encourage grinding random encounters (that would be bad DM-ing).

PE will not have an infinite XP pool. But giving axp for encounters that weren't part of objectives or quests per xp should not and hopefully will not "unbalance game progression". I hope that PE can handle my "less predictable" playthroughs, as that's what roleplaying a party is for me.

Edited January 26, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Sir Chaox]

I hope I am getting this information right (so much to sift through)

I think that the situation Stun and Azmodan were discussing should definitely warrant experience, and I would agree with Stun that you shouldn't need to grab a quest or objective BEFORE being rewarded experience for encountering a hand-placed wilderness event (i.e. the ogre camp).

It is absolutely possible to still do this within an objective/accomplishment system because the ogre camp is hand-placed; instead of needing an initial quest to gain the XP, you would simply take action and gain a new objective dynamically through that action.

So you encounter the ogre camp and have no objective relating to it. You can interact with it in a number of ways (steal from the camp, wipe out the ogres, talk with them, etc.). Whatever you choose to do, you should be awarded XP if you make a significant enough impact on the camp. I think that is reasonable, though it may be difficult to gauge what "significant impact" means; how many ogres is enough to consider it "wiped out"?  Still, because all of these encounters are not randomly generated, it should be possible to trigger experience gains based on meeting certain criteria for such an encounter where you do no initially have any tasks relating to it.

The main idea is that the player should definitely receive experience for interacting with this encounter and similar encounters, despite not having an initial quest/objective to do so, and it should be possible within this accomplishment system.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I would agree with Stun that you shouldn't need to grab a quest or objective BEFORE being rewarded experience for encountering a hand-placed wilderness event (i.e. the ogre camp).

 

It is absolutely possible to still do this within an objective/accomplishment system because the ogre camp is hand-placed; instead of needing an initial quest to gain the XP, you would simply take action and gain a new objective dynamically through that action.

 

I think that is reasonable, though it may be difficult to gauge what "significant impact" means; how many ogres is enough to consider it "wiped out"? 

Indeed, and that's why Tim Cain's "accomplishment" is so much better, because it rewards the party after they have dealt with the encounter, instead of the concept "objective xp", which to me entails having an objective, and thus it's almost is like a mini-quest or a part of a quest, and that won't do it, no?

 

I like have you emphasized "hand-placed". This is what I presume as well, even if it has some randomness via some script, all encounters should have been thought through thoroughly and make sense in its context (heh, a comeback for that term).

 

And the question of "significant impact" is very interesting. What happens if the party takes out one ogre and flees?

[Sir Chaox]

 

I would agree with Stun that you shouldn't need to grab a quest or objective BEFORE being rewarded experience for encountering a hand-placed wilderness event (i.e. the ogre camp).

 

It is absolutely possible to still do this within an objective/accomplishment system because the ogre camp is hand-placed; instead of needing an initial quest to gain the XP, you would simply take action and gain a new objective dynamically through that action.

 

I think that is reasonable, though it may be difficult to gauge what "significant impact" means; how many ogres is enough to consider it "wiped out"? 

Indeed, and that's why Tim Cain's "accomplishment" is so much better, because it rewards the party after they have dealt with the encounter, instead of the concept "objective xp", which to me entails having an objective, and thus it's almost is like a mini-quest or a part of a quest, and that won't do it, no?

 

I like have you emphasized "hand-placed". This is what I presume as well, even if it has some randomness via some script, all encounters should have been thought through thoroughly and make sense in its context (heh, a comeback for that term).

 

And the question of "significant impact" is very interesting. What happens if the party takes out one ogre and flees?

 

 

Well when I think about gaining experience, I am trying to think "what makes sense?" It makes sense to me that you gain experience for attempting to fight something but realizing you are not strong enough to overcome it so you flee to fight again another day. I mean it would make sense because you learned something new, so you might get a small experience gain from it. But honestly, trying to implement a system like that in code sounds quite advanced; it would be a pretty amazing system though if they could pull it off. Unfortunately, I do not think it will be so dynamic. So more than likely, without meeting some sort of threshold, you would not gain any experience for that single kill, but I also don't really know how advanced the current accomplishment system is.

 

Also, I agree "accomplishment" really is a better word for it, just got too use to using the term "objective" from earlier. That's why Tim is sitting over there and I'm sitting over here, I guess.

 

P.S. I'm off to bed, good night until tomorrow

[Elerond]

In objective based xp system level designers when they design levels they also design objectives that grant xp for that level. (At least this is usually case)

 

So if level designer puts Ogre camp in level s/he also puts some objectives considering that ogre camp, which for example could be get rid of the ogre camp, kill or otherwise dispose ogre leader save or kill (and blame ogres) prisoners in ogre camp.

 

Objectives aren't quest by themselves, but quest usually consist on or more objectives that player must complete before quest is completed, but objectives themselves don't need to be and often aren't part of quest. So objectives in levels don't need to be given player as quest so that player can complete them, but instead of that player can tumble on them as player would tumble on them in game which uses kill xp. Especially as encounters aren't generated by using procedural methods, but instead made by designer by hand.

 

And probably not only player get xp from this encounters, but this encounters probably have also cause and effect reactivity with game world, which usually much simpler to implement when you already have system that keeps track on what player has done and what actions s/he has used, which game needs when it uses objective based xp.

 

So one could say that quests are story lines in the game which have objectives in them that take said story line forward when player fulfill them, but objectives themselves don't need and often aren't part, at least directly, such story line, but are instead of things that reward player when s/he does something in the game which designer of the game has decided to be worth of a xp reward.

 

An example scenario:

 

Player explores world and tumbles on bridge, which is guarded by trolls who demand that player pays them before s/he can cross the bridge. Crossing said bridge is not part of any quest and it's absolute optional for finishing the game. So player can decide that s/he don't want to pay and go some where else, or s/he can kill the trolls, when s/he unconsciously fulfill an objective laid by level designer which give her/him specific amount of xp points, but if player decides to go explore level more s/he can find that there is dam in that river which previously mentioned bridge crosses and that s/he has option to destroy it, which also fulfill an objective laid by level designer and if player decided to broke the dam and then goes back to the bridge player finds out that bridge and troll guarding it are gone, but player can use ruins of said bridge to cross the river. Addition to immediate effects on level both killing trolls and destroying the dam have also long run effects, killing trolls will make player hero in human village down the river and villain in troll settlement cross the bridge, destroying the dam will also cause horrendous damage for human village down the river and cause it to demise at the end and furthermore troll settlement cross the bridge see player as villain. (of course there could be other options to fulfill the objective, which have their own long run effects, like, making a raft, persuading trolls, etc.).

 

So at the end objective xp system don't prohibit exploration and random killings any more than what per kill based xp system do.

[IndiraLightfoot]

First, and this is no biggie, just a funny recurring typo, but you happened to write "tumble" each time you meant "stumble". No need to correct it, though. It put a smile on my face!

 

As for your description of the xp system as overarching storyline quests with plenty of objectives attached to them like beads on necklaces, I see no problem there. If done right, this makes for great checks and balances when fine-tuning the gameplay and the RP-experience and world reactivity overall. 

 

However, if there are even one encounter that doesn't fit into this scheme, then I reckon xp should be rewarded just like it was an objective-bead on one of those quest-strings. It should be just as much an accomplishment as any of the other encounters. I have a feeling there will be a few of these maverick encounters that don't affect any quest in any way, but that's just a guess.

[teknoman2]

reading this post just made me think of something... not having "per kill xp" is not the same as not having "combat xp". if you meet a group of particular enemies and kill them you may get combat xp for winning the fight. what you will not get is xp for each individual kill, or xp for just killing a random wolf or bear.

i.e: you go in a cave just to explore and find it full of orcs. you can sneak past them, see the whole cave, steal some treasure they have and leave, getting 500xp for exploration. but what if killing the orcs is a separate objective that is worth 1000xp? see? combat related xp! you will not get separate xp for each orc you kill, but if you kill them all you get 1000xp. but unless you kill them all, you will not know that there is a reward, and since you do not know it, you have the option to just leave them be... while if you knew that each orc is 50xp you would just kill them without thinking twice

[Azmodan]

Hi IndiraLightfoot,  , you said:

AD&D's "flat" xp rewards didn't encourage grinding random encounters (that would be bad DM-ing).

 

Yes it would. Welcome to wilderness encounters in BG1, where wolves, bears, ogrillions, gibberlings etc respawned ad nauseum. For XPs!

These encounters in BG were hand placed in that these monsters were spawning at particular spots on the map. We have evolved past that design.

 

I use the word objective in place of accomplishment, my bad. The accomplishment is to resolve the encounter.

 

Approach 1:

You meet 3 trolls, ponies and shorties. You lay waste to the whole lot with fireballs. You should still get XP for completing the encounter (the XP is for killing the trolls only).

Later, you find yourself ambushed by a wizard who seems upset with you for indeterminate reasons. Credits roll.

 

Approach 2:

You sneak up on the 3 trolls and overhear them arguing whether and how to kill and eat the shorties, you decide to kill the trolls without raining fire and brimstone indiscriminantly. As soon as you are exposed to the shorties (they spot you), they scream for help. Whether you like it or not, that's an objective added to your log.

You get XP for clearing the encounter (again from trolls), you also get +Reputation with short people everywhere. If you also managed to save their ponies (because if the combat starts to take too long, the trolls start using ponies as clubs or throw them at you), you might get a small amount of bonus XP.

At the end of your encounter a wizard arrives and thanks you.

 

Approach 3:

Your party is a bunch of bastards. Your mage/druid/evil ranger whatever, convinces the trolls that there is in fact a correct way to prepare short people, and expertly lies by pointing out a particularly deadly plant. Grateful trolls award your party some poky-things that have been lying around in their hole. Your party moves on, content to know that the trolls will be poisoned on deaded shorties. In the neighbouring town, a distraught-looking wizard asks you whether you're interested in clearing a dragon out of a mountain. Phat lewtz are promised.

 

Any encounter with a "wandering enemy" can and should be explored by the developer / level designer as an opportunity to have fun with the scripting engine. Because having only a single option: "fight to the death" is railroading in a roleplaying game.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Azmodan

[IndiraLightfoot]

Hi IndiraLightfoot,  , you said:

AD&D's "flat" xp rewards didn't encourage grinding random encounters (that would be bad DM-ing).

 

Yes it would. Welcome to wilderness encounters in BG1, where wolves, bears, ogrillions, gibberlings etc respawned ad nauseum. For XPs!

These encounters in BG were hand placed in that these monsters were spawning at particular spots on the map. We have evolved past that design.

 

Any encounter with a "wandering enemy" can and should be explored by the developer / level designer as an opportunity to have fun with the scripting engine. Because having only a single option: "fight to the death" is railroading in a roleplaying game.

Haha, I loved your three approaches!

 

However, I meant AD&D as a RPG-system, and that doesn't encourage stuff like that. Reading the DM Guide, it clearly advises to steer clear from stuff like that (ultimately that's up to the DM, of course).

I know that things like that occurred in a few places in BG1. I didn't exploit it, though. That would just be boring.

And we're on the same page there, one single option "kill, kill!!" would be a pretty awful CRPG, or rather an ARPG or some dungeon crawler. They are quite fine too, but that's almost an other kind of games altogether to me.

[Stun]

What Stun does not appear to understand at the core, is that ADnD gave flat XP rewards and these encourage random encounter / wilderness encounter grinding (i.e. where mobs respawn, such as wilderness areas in BG1). Creating an infinite XP pool to harvest will unbalance game progression, making encounter design and staging less predictable.

AD&D does BOTH. The system advocates rewarding XP for conflict resolution and individual creature kills. Besides, have you ever played Table-top D&D? Encounters are a big deal. They take forever to complete individually. Because Every action, every movement, every dice roll for every character and every enemy has to be manually checked, discussed, explained, mapped out and performed... one character at a time... every round. I've never met a human being who had enough waking hours in their life to "grind".

 

As for unbalancing the game.... HA! and you guys accuse me of subject changing. This issue has absolutely jack to do with game balance. Especially in POE, which will have a level cap.

 

Lastly, stop tossing around the term "grinding". Your posts on this thread suggest you don't have the faintest clue what that term even means. Grinding can only occur if the system has infinite respawning, and then only if players abuse that infinite respawing by revisiting the same areas they've already cleared, over and over, in order to engage in additional combat and get XP for it. And if that's happening, then the solution is to eliminate infinite respawning, isn't it. Not XP for kills. DUH.

 

Approach 1:

You meet 3 trolls, ponies and shorties. You lay waste to the whole lot with fireballs. You should still get XP for completing the encounter (the XP is for killing the trolls only).

Now there's some hardcore wishful thinking... which goes against what we've already been told by the developers of this game. What happens if you don't? What happens if the game doesn't reward you for racking up your body count by 3 for killing those trolls? Will you be OK with that? Will you be ok with spending your time, energy, limited use spells and possibly some valuable limited consumables killing those trolls and then NOT getting Experience points for it? Edited January 26, 2014 by Stun

[Azmodan]

Hi Stun,

 

You read my responses selectively. I already went into detail re: pen and paper DnD. I played it. I also GMed it. Hamster statues.

BG1 also had a level cap. Again - my earliest replies - as soon as mage has fireball can grind wilderness respawns for XP.

BG1 has infinite respawns in wilderness locations. So yes. I am using the word appropriately.

 

Already answered your last point re: wishful thinking - lewtz are their own reward.

If the encounter is designed to award lewtz only, then that is OK.

A well-designed encounter system will add an XP-awarding objective: "neutralise" not "kill". With "kill" being one approach, not THE ONLY approach to resolve it.

It is an accomplishment when you move past the mentality of every problem looking like an anvil, when the only tool you locked yourself into using is a hammer.

[Stun]

BG1 has infinite respawns in wilderness locations. So yes. I am using the word appropriately.

No it doesn't.

 

Already answered your last point re: wishful thinking - lewtz are their own reward.

 

If the encounter is designed to award lewtz only, then that is OK.

Well now, that doesn't fix any of the "problems" you've cited in D&D's system, does it. If players know that Killing = getting loot, they will eagerly continue grinding, and grinding, and grinding.

 

 

A well-designed encounter system will add an XP-awarding objective: "neutralise" not "kill". With "kill" being one approach, not THE ONLY approach to resolve it.

Right. I agree. But that just brings us right back to the beginning of this discussion. If you stumble upon a group of monsters in the forest, and you get XP for dealing with them non-lethally, but no XP for wiping them out, then we haven't fixed the problem in the system. We've just shifted it somewhere else. If I built my character to be a skilled monster killer, why should I be penalized for it? Also, Lets not forget update 7. Tim Cain said we're not going to be rewarded for our body-counts....

 

It is an accomplishment when you move past the mentality of every problem looking like an anvil, when the only tool you locked yourself into using is a hammer.

Straw man/Personal play style opinion. Wanting XP for killing things does not mean that the gamer is some simple-minded neanderthol who wants to solve every problem by smashing it with his big hammer. And no good RPG should ever corral the player in any specific direction like that. A good RPG should reward all play styles if they succeed. And it should offer up scenarios that play into all styles. That includes killing things for XP, and outwitting things for XP Edited January 26, 2014 by Stun

[Sir Chaox]

As for unbalancing the game.... HA! and you guys accuse me of subject changing. This issue has absolutely jack to do with game balance. Especially in POE, which will have a level cap.

 

I disagree. It is the balance between the various ways of playing the game that is key to this discussion.

 

If a combat playthrough (fighting more often than any other option) gave more experience than a diplomatic playthrough (trying to gain advantages through dialogue), then that would create an imbalance. Also, if a player is allowed to follow multiple branches in a situation, which effectively increases their experience gains over other branches, then that would imbalance the game as well.

 

How would that be possible?

 

Let's look at a non-objective system, one that rewards XP for single kills and other minor tasks. In the combat branch, you kill all the enemies and you are done with them; you don't have a second option to take, but you got experience for each kill and are satisfied. But following a diplomatic branch, if you chose to talk with the enemy first and convince them not to fight or to do something advantageous for yourself, you would get XP for that, but then you can also choose to just kill them all anyway and be rewarded combat XP on top of that (because you get XP per kill). That's not fair for people following the combat branch, and players may choose to manipulate the system to increase their overall XP gains by intending to kill them in the end but first getting additional experience through other methods. I believe this is what we've been referring to as "degenerate design"; allowing the player options that were not originally intended by the designer.

 

Comparing that to an accomplishment system, you may only get experience for solving a particular problem or making a significant change in an encounter. If you pacify the hostiles through dialogue, you get experience and maybe even some reputation points or future allies; killing them afterward changes nothing towards your initial objective because they are already pacified. Meanwhile, you can just kill them instead and get a similar XP reward from fighting, and you'd also get loot and gold, but you'd miss out on the other diplomatic bonuses.

 

I think we should have each path be worthwhile to follow and also be balanced between one another (in terms of experience) so that the player can feel like any path is viable and therefore will not worry about whether or not a chosen path gives more or less experience compared to another and just focus on the path they wish to play. If gives more freedom to the player to do what they want and not worry about XP rewards.

 

One last thing. I am not advocating that a player follow a single branch through the entire game; I am simply saying that any option taken should be fairly balanced (not necessarily fully balanced) between the other options in terms of XP rewards, so that the player does not have to second guess the action for one that might have given more experience. Other rewards may differ drastically, such as loot/gold/reputation/etc. (for example, one branch may end with you getting nothing at all but XP, which is fine to me if it makes sense), but the XP rewards should remain fairly similar in most cases.

[Lephys]

If we're using the same character, then the skill needed to score a hit will be exactly the same. The IE games are not twitch based systems, btw. The skill we're talking about is the character's skill, not the player's. Although, the player's skill is still a factor. as a skillful player, I'll know the best buffs to use to augment my character's to-hit score.

I made my usage of the word "skill" quite clear, and you're arguing against a different usage. Not very helpful. Obviously I never claimed that the luck-based roll wasn't derived from/affected by a numerical value, labeled within the game system as a "skill." I simply pointed out the fact that, skill or no skill, the end result -- an attack roll -- is a roll of chance, as affected by various other values. The very core of the system is variable chance. If you'd like to deny that, then I have no idea what else ot even say to you. If you wouldn't like to deny that, then maybe stop wasting words on something we don't even disagree on.

 

Again, like I told you a year ago when we had this discussion, The system you're trying to criticize is Vast. There are ways around EVERYTHING. The Loopholes have loopholes. And that's what makes BG2 (for example) so fun. And so amazingly replayable.

And that's great. But, it simply doesn't need these loopholes. "Loopholes" are, by definition, unintended allowances by a given set of rules and/or restrictions. Sure, they can be enjoyable. I'm just being objective here. It's fun to elaborately slay a dragon in a couple of hits, but if it's just from a bunch of real-world rule-shaping technicalities, it's not really serving much more of a purpose than a cheat code. There's nothing wrong with using cheat codes to, say, become invincible. But, there's a reason they require a code to be put in, instead of just being an inherent aspect of the game. Not because it's bad to be invincible, or to enjoy it, but because it contradicts the deliberate framework of challenge.

 

You've got easy fights, more difficult fights, all the way up to "this is relatively one of the toughest fights in the game" fights, in a game like this. There's absolutely no logical reason for it to allow you to turn that into one of the easiest fights in the game if you just happen to do it right. It's not that it can't do it. Just that it has no need to.

 

Anyway, you believe what you believe, so, *shrug*... it doesn't really matter. I'm just explaining my stance on it. I think you're just not actually considering my actual perspective before believing what you do, (even if you'd still ultimately prefer it the way you do now). But, that's just me.

[Yonjuro]

 

As for unbalancing the game.... HA! and you guys accuse me of subject changing. This issue has absolutely jack to do with game balance. Especially in POE, which will have a level cap.

 

I disagree. It is the balance between the various ways of playing the game that is key to this discussion.

 

 

 Hang on, let's underline 'level cap' here.

 

 In BG1+TotSC, you would hit the XP cap (and similar arguments apply to a level cap) by doing the main quest, Durlag's Tower and little else. In addition, at every point in the game, there was enough XP to strategically level your party if that's what you wanted to do (e.g. the basilisk map with Korax the dire charmed ghoul that we discussed earlier in this thread).

 

 So, in the end (or, really, at any point in the middle), it really doesn't matter whether you chose option a or option b (or both) to solve a side quest. There is far more XP to go around than you can actually gain in a single play through.

 

 So, if someone chooses to be a 'degenerate' gamer they would only be making the game tedious for themselves, not unbalancing the game.

[Azmodan]

 

BG1 has infinite respawns in wilderness locations. So yes. I am using the word appropriately.

No it doesn't.

 

 

Yes it does, Stun. Monsters respawn in BG1 wilderness areas.

 

Re update #7 and Tim Cain - and I fully support what he said. And if you want to grind for lewtz, go for it. But you already said: it will be disadvantageous.

And re: everything else - if an encounter is set in such a way where the player has to do something different, then its an objective/accomplishment/whatever yada yada ... revisiting examples / comments made 3-4 pages back.

 

Because this thread is beggining to become exhausting, A SOLUTION:

 

Tim Cain said accomplishments, not body count:

 

- Killing random enemies will not give XP, in line with Tim's strategy, BUT will increment a counter

- So everyone's favourite nameless bandits, wolves, bugbears, trolls, ogres etc., once dead, and having dropped some creature-appropriate lewtz (definitely not vorpal holy avengers), increment their respective counters

- If in a great majority of encounters with the above, the player chose the lethal outcome, as opposed to another solution, the player eventually receives does accomplish something, including how NPCs respond to them:

 

"Hail, mighty Stun Trollkiller, Wolfsbane, Ogre-obliterator, Beheader of Bugbears and Executioner of thieves! Do you want to look at my store inventory?"

 

In addition, with every accomplishment, a specific NPC, the Ducal Huntmaster, a Guild agent or whatever is appropriate for different monster categories, approaches the player's party and presents them with something in recognition of their work. The various items are appropriately magical with useful effects.

 

Clearly this is all balanced out for those players who didn't choose to murder things, by other appropriate rewards for their investigation in a manner I described in the previous posts.

 

Done.

[Lephys]

Nice selective quoting, because you also said this: "The fact that they allowed it just means that they did it wrong, not that they wanted you to kill the dragon in 1 hit." in the same block of text I quoted. Again, you can't kill a dragon with one hit.

Must... resist... immense... irony! *struggle struggle*

 

One of the most effective things is not to use this tactic, because you'll no doubt get your arse handed to you.

Wait, so... there's no doubt that it simply won't work, but at the same time:

 

On one of my very first play throughs of BG2 (possibly my first play through), I used Jaheira to use the spell Harm on the Shadow Dragon and reduce him to 1 hp. An incredibly low chance of success and it worked.

??? I'm confused.

 

It's hard because there are many variables to pull it off and it takes a lot of skill to get all those variables working together. One small mistake by the player and it won't work.

One small mistake... like... not knowing the rules and abilities? Do all other builds in the entire game, and all other strategies that involve a 15-minute dragon fight, require significantly less "skill" (just... thought and planning, really, but, we'll just ignore what words mean, for now, I suppose) than a build that could feasibly allow you to hit a dragon with Harm, then strike it once more before it heals itself for a large sum of hitpoints?

 

Because, if beating the dragon at all requires a lot of "skill," then the difference is still that you can either use that lot of skill to potentially end the fight in 2 turns, or fight the thing the "normal" way by actually having to use spells that don't take it down to 1 hit point from however many the dev team decided to give it.

 

In other words... what's more difficult? Actually fighting the dragon until it's dead? Or having a couple of lucky dice rolls be in your favor until the dragon is dead? I'm guessing the former, which involves a lot more time, resource-use, and strategic healing and tactics until the dragon's actually dead, requires more skill and effort. Unless you're somehow saying that successfully using Harm on a dragon, then killing it in one hit after that is the only thing in the game that requires you to pay attention to how you build your party and allocate all your level-ups and gear and whatnot, and that any other method of defeating the dragon can be much more easily achieved by just blindly using whatever party build you happen to make with hardly any planning or thinking or effort involved at all.

 

And if it doesn't work which it probably won't, you have no Heal spells for the rest of the encounter. Yeah, good gameplay tactics... not.

So you die. And then the apocalypse occurs and the world ends... Oh wait, no, you continue, just like you'd do if you died while using any other strategy in any other encounter in the whole game, and you try again, with completely new dice rolls this time. And it eventually works. The 1st time, or the 100th time. You don't decide which time it works. The dice do. Welcome to luck-based challenge elimination.

 

Yes Lephys, this quote is for you: "You keep saying that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

Wait... I could've sworn I just saw that same line in this thread somewhere recently... *ponder*

[teknoman2]

giving xp for each kill is making the player decisions follow a railroad path. i play fallout 2 and get into the vault with the sentient deathclaws. i can talk with them, come to an understanding help them and get information about my own quest in exchange. but once the quest part is done i save and start killing them. why? because each kill is worth half a level of xp. not killing them when they are no longer useful, may have been the roleplay correct approach for a nice guy character as mine was, but the xp was just too tempting to pass. if there was no xp for killing them, i would have had no reason to swear like a port worker while trying again and again to kill them for no other reason but to get the fat xp (since my diplomatic approach had already got me the desired result)

Edited January 26, 2014 by teknoman2