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

[Pipyui]

Who needs soaps when you've got this thread?

 

Now we just need a change of character.  Lephys' child is dying, it's developed a condition where it's immune system rejects objective-based XP.  For the sake of his child, Lephys must turn over a new leaf and fight for the cause of per-kill-XP, against his own moral standing.  Can he forsake himself and his people so easily for the sake of his kid?

 

Meanwhile, a rift is growing between Stun and Hiro - they cannot negotiate a means to distribute per-kill-XP through the party.  Now they fight the same battle, but for different reasons.  Are they as strong individually as they were together?  Can they put aside their differences, or will this rift tear them apart forever?  Is Pipyui just a bumbling sack of dirt, or a royal bumbling sack of dirt?  TILL NEXT TIME.

 

[teknoman2]

I'm thinking "random encounter" is being differently defined by peeps in this discussion.

 

Hiro's talking about the oft-coming random monster attacks as you travel between, say, Beregost and High-Hedge or wherever.

Others are coming up with examples of 'scenarios' that, though  they may occur at random, are in fact set-pieces made by the developers.

 

I agree it's less likely that we'll have the former in PE (though they may still be in - I don't have any info for sure) in which case, they're irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Encounters while exploring the map (so not based on trying to do a quest but just enemies you run across in the wilderness areas) can still be rewarded indirectly under the current system as I highlighted in my last post.

 

Once again "Objective" does not equal "journal-entried quest" (unless one of the devs pops up to correct my misinterpretation of the phrase "Objective xp".

but the so called "random" encounters are just preset situations that the developers have set in the game. it's not like the game just creates something randomly like the first diablo did for the maps. they just occur at random times or order.

[Yonjuro]

Who needs soaps when you've got this thread?

 

.....

 

(Thanks Pipyui. Excellent summation of where we are n this thread.)

 

...TILL NEXT TIME.

 

 

 And, it's next time. I think we have some glass half full people and some glass half empty people here and also a general disagreement about the level of the glass. 

 

 I'm optimistic about PoE, but I see the concerns people have. It is entirely possible that removing 'degenerate' game play from PoE will also remove some of the fun and flexibility of the IE games (or not, we'll see). 

 

 Here are some legitimate concerns that were voiced here and and elsewhere:

 

1. By removing kill XP you remove heinous examples of grinding (e.g. resting in a place with respawning enemies) but you may (I used the word 'may' on purpose here; a well done accomplishment/objective system may work fine) also remove options a player has. Especially for solo or small party play throughs where fighting hard enemies early (*cough*, ankhegs, *cough*) would level a solo character up faster. The really 'degenerate' case above (abuse of respawns) comes with own penalty (i.e. it would be too boring for me to bother with) so one could argue that it doesn't matter.

 

 

2. How is XP divided? (This may be known (?), but I can't recall). Is it X points divided by the number of party members (like most XP in BG2) or is it X per party member (like 'quest experience' in BG 2). If the latter, it could turn small and solo runs into a miserable grind rather than a fun challenge (though, in some of the IE games, some solo characters, such as monks, tended to get overpowered late game, if anything; still it was hard to keep them alive that long, so it was a reward for getting through the early game).

 

3. I can think of a few others, but I'll stop with those two XP related items; add to the list if you have other concerns.

 

So, in the continuing drama that is this thread, here are two items of possible concern. PoE may do a great job of getting rid of bad mechanics of the IE games and keeping only the good stuff, or maybe the baby (and the wash tub) will get tossed out with the bath water. We don't know. But, opinions?

[Gfted1]

Honest question because I cant remember, can anyone point to any IE game that had respawning enemies?

[Elerond]

Honest question because I cant remember, can anyone point to any IE game that had respawning enemies?

 

At least BG1 has respawning enemies in several places. And in BG2 there was spawning enemies in several places when you rested.

[Yonjuro]

Honest question because I cant remember, can anyone point to any IE game that had respawning enemies?

 

 If you rested in Cloakwood in BG1, you would sometimes need to fight some spiders. In IWD1, resting in the Vale of Shadows might get you rudely awakened by some yetis. I think it could happen any time you rested outside of an Inn (or, in BG2, outside of an Inn or stronghold).

 

  In BG2 you tended to get waylaid by the same enemies quite often (they even dropped the same loot) so you might call that a respawning enemy.

 

 It wouldn't have been a reliable way to grind XP, just some random encounters.

[Gfted1]

 

Honest question because I cant remember, can anyone point to any IE game that had respawning enemies?

 

At least BG1 has respawning enemies in several places. And in BG2 there was spawning enemies in several places when you rested.

 

Hmm, I cant point my finger to a single occasion but its been years since I played either. In BG2, are you referring to random encounters that could spring up when you tried to rest? I wouldn't consider that respawning enemies that you can sit there and farm.

 

EDIT: @Yonjuro: That's what I thought, not true respawning, just random encounters.

[Stun]

Also planescape torment had zones that constantly respawned enemies. Undersigil and Baator respawned whenever you left the area and re-entered. The modron cube respawns enemies on command. Thugs and abishai in the Hive respawn upon area transition. Parts of the weeping stone catacombs and the Warrens of Thought will respawn. (mostly the Varguills and the cranium rats.)

 

BG1's respawning is based on reloading your game. If you're in, say, a wilderness area, and you reload your game, all generic enemies in the map that you've already killed will respawn. Although there are some maps where this doesn't occur.

 

 

1. By removing kill XP you...

Wait, wait, wait. We're not there yet. Approximately 50% of the posters on this thread do not yet accept the fact that Obsidian is removing kill xp in POE. That's why this thread is up to page 5 right now, instead of page 1 or 2.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

The gnoll stronghold in BG1 has respawning gnolls. Quite quickly-respawning at that; the first time I got there I scouted forward extremely warily and it felt like I'm being constantly attacked. (The second time I went in fast and barely noticed the respawning though.)

 

Same for that ruin in the East with endless waves of kobolds. I'm sure there were plenty more.

[Yonjuro]

 

1. By removing kill XP you...

Wait, wait, wait. We're not there yet. Approximately 50% of the posters on this thread do not yet accept the fact that Obsidian is removing kill xp in POE. That's why this thread is up to page 5 right now, instead of page 1 or 2.

 

 

  I think they might be saying something different from what you think they are saying.

 

  I believe the argument is: while you don't get XP for everything you kill in PoE, in many encounters you will kill things and get XP as a direct result - i.e. the 'accomplishment' for which you are awarded XP will be that you killed something. In the IE games, one could say, killing something was always an 'accomplishment' in PoE it isn't always, but it may be very very often, potentially even most of the time (we don't know how much yet). I think that's what people are saying.

[Stun]

I think they might be saying something different from what you think they are saying.

 

  I believe the argument is: while you don't get XP for everything you kill in PoE, in many encounters you will kill things and get XP as a direct result - i.e. the 'accomplishment' for which you are awarded XP will be that you killed something. In the IE games, one could say, killing something was always an 'accomplishment' in PoE it isn't always, but it may be very very often, potentially even most of the time (we don't know how much yet). I think that's what people are saying.

I know. I get the argument.

 

The problem is that there's no difference between directly getting XP for your kills, and directly getting XP for kills because "killing things was the objective". It's literally the same thing. Any time there is combat, killing will be one of the objectives. So.... why did Tim Cain feel the need to tell us that the game will not reward you for your body count? Was he just trying to put a spin on things for marketing sake?

 

Also, I didn't want to bring this up because it'd muddle the discussion, but since the issue won't go away.... Are you guys actually OK with a game filled with bounty-hunter and "clear this area" quests? Because if killing things is going to be a quest objective, then those are the type of quests that will litter the game. Otherwise, you cannot expect combat to net you XP, and that would take us right back to the beginning of this discussion: no XP for killing things, except on rare occasions when killing is part of a quest. And woe to those who do all 15 levels of the megadungeon and don't get any XP for killing all its monsters until the very end when the quest is completed.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Stun

[FlintlockJazz]

I have just been playing Baldur's Gate tonight and I felt what happened tonight actually highlights the situation here nicely.  I was doing the bandit camp, I had managed to blag my way in and got into the main tent without any fights until then.  Once I had finished and accomplished my goal I could leave, without having another fight, but then that would mean missing out on the xp and loot from all the guys outside, including a particularly hard fight and highly rewarding one with the leader of the Blacktalons.  Now, objective xp would have given me the same xp for blagging past as it would have fighting them, and I would not then be able to 'cheat' more xp by just slotting everyone on the way out like I did tonight, for which I had no reason to do other than to Highlander their xp (I think we should call kill xp 'Highlandering it' from now on), but it would also mean missing out on a tough fight with a bossman.  

 

Now, it could be argued that getting into a fight after trying so hard to avoid it would be a failure anyway, so getting it for a failure is backwards, plus while I don't get the xp I DO get the loot, which was rather nice armour by the way.

 

Another approach would be to say that killing this guy should be an optional objective xp, that if he was truly challenging that he should give xp for overcoming his optional challenge.  Now, this sounds like just kill xp, except that it would be limited to just him and that it would not necessarily require turning on the whole camp to get maximum xp.  I am not saying that you can instead poison him (though that could be an interesting and possibly hard method as well), but rather getting him to fight you without also drawing the entire camp in on you as well, maybe by antagonising him in some way so that he challenged you to a duel instead and everyone else just looked on with amusement.  This would then mean avoiding having to fight the rest of the camp by doing something clever, and possibly got you more respect in the camp which may have lead to other gains.  

 

The bit about not having to fight the rest of the camp is important I think: after I had done the two big battles in BG2 today I then spent 30 minutes just going around the camp killing people.  This did not require any skill on my part, nor did it lead to anything entertaining, I was controlling the action with one hand while I absent mindedly mined my nostril with the other hand pulling out a rather huge bogey, seriously I was quite chuffed with it though it got awkward wiping it in the bin under the desk, all while grinding these trash mobs.  I did not overcome anything, I don't think I even lost a hit point while doing it, and there was certainly no reason to do it besides highlandering it and collecting scalps.  Hell, I would have just done it for the scalps, no need for a xp reward for essentially walking over someone.  They were trash mobs, nothing more than a time sink, which isn't needed in a singleplayer game.  My face rolling over the keyboard would've sufficed.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

I think they might be saying something different from what you think they are saying.

 

  I believe the argument is: while you don't get XP for everything you kill in PoE, in many encounters you will kill things and get XP as a direct result - i.e. the 'accomplishment' for which you are awarded XP will be that you killed something. In the IE games, one could say, killing something was always an 'accomplishment' in PoE it isn't always, but it may be very very often, potentially even most of the time (we don't know how much yet). I think that's what people are saying.

I know. I get the argument.

 

The problem is that there's no difference between directly getting XP for your kills, and directly getting XP for kills because "killing things was the objective". It's literally the same thing. Any time there is combat, killing will be one of the objectives. So.... why did Tim Cain feel the need to tell us that the game will not reward you for your body count? Was he just trying to put a spin on things for marketing sake?

 

Also, I didn't want to bring this up because it'd muddle the discussion, but since the issue won't go away.... Are you guys actually OK with a game filled with bounty-hunter and "clear this area" quests? Because if killing things is going to be an objective, then those are the type of quests that will litter the game. Otherwise, you cannot expect combat to net you XP, and that would take us right back to the beginning of this discussion: no XP for killing things, except on rare occasions when killing is a quest objective. And woe to those who do all 15 levels of the megadungeon and don't get any XP for killing all its monsters until the very end.

 

Not all objectives will be quests, in fact I suspect a large number will be unrelated to quests such as the explore an area ones, you just get them as you achieve them.

[Stun]

I have just been playing Baldur's Gate tonight and I felt what happened tonight actually highlights the situation here nicely.  I was doing the bandit camp, I had managed to blag my way in and got into the main tent without any fights until then.  Once I had finished and accomplished my goal I could leave, without having another fight, but then that would mean missing out on the xp and loot from all the guys outside, including a particularly hard fight and highly rewarding one with the leader of the Blacktalons.  Now, objective xp would have given me the same xp for blagging past as it would have fighting them, and I would not then be able to 'cheat' more xp by just slotting everyone on the way out like I did tonight, for which I had no reason to do other than to Highlander their xp (I think we should call kill xp 'Highlandering it' from now on), but it would also mean missing out on a tough fight with a bossman.

Indeed. BG1's bandit camp quest is a good example of...well... just about everythng we've been talking about here.

 

And I think Josh would call killing the leader of the black talons (to get his armor and the 2000 xp that he's worth) when the quest/storyline doesn't require it Degenerate Gameplay. So of course, such behavior must be stamped out/discouraged at all costs. Including fun, and player freedom.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Stun

[Yonjuro]

 

I think they might be saying something different from what you think they are saying.

 

  I believe the argument is: while you don't get XP for everything you kill in PoE, in many encounters you will kill things and get XP as a direct result - i.e. the 'accomplishment' for which you are awarded XP will be that you killed something. In the IE games, one could say, killing something was always an 'accomplishment' in PoE it isn't always, but it may be very very often, potentially even most of the time (we don't know how much yet). I think that's what people are saying.

I know. I get the argument.

 

The problem is that there's no difference between directly getting XP for your kills, and directly getting XP for kills because "killing things was the objective". It's literally the same thing. Any time there is combat, killing will be one of the objectives. So.... why did Tim Cain feel the need to tell us that the game will not reward you for your body count? Was he just trying to put a spin on things for marketing sake?

 

 

 There can be a difference. Here's an example:

 

 To keep the example simple, suppose a quest is to retrieve an item from an area. Also suppose that the only way to do this is to go to the area, kill everything and take the item because, say, the enemy density is too high to use stealth and they aren't willing to negotiate with you. 

 

 So, degenerate play number one: blunder in and attack, when someone in your party gets too low on hit points run away (presumably reloading if they die), rest until healed. Repeat. 

 

 The above won't work if enemies respawn, leading us to degenerate play number two: Similar to number one, but keep blundering in and killing things until you hit the level cap. 

 

 With accomplishment/objective based XP, you can still get  the same amount of XP for doing the quest, but you would be rewarded for using reasonable tactics (not having to repeat the same fight ad nauseum) and not rewarded for XP farming (by doing exactly that).

 

 Essentially, the encounter designer can give you XP for the kills but, only once, in order to encourage you to up your game w.r.t to tactics.

[Stun]

Example #2. POE is a nice big world and you're dying to go out and start exploring those wilderness areas on the map. So you do. Once your party arrives, you start walking around. You stumble upon a pack of Ogres. They attack. You fight them. You kill them.

 

A) You get no XP for it, because there was no quest tied to it. And no objective.

B) You get 300xp because it was an "encounter" and you "accomplished" a victory.

 

Given what was revealed to us in Update #7, Which one is true? A or B?

 

- If A is true, then are you ok with that, given how significant they're claiming exploration AND combat are going to be?

- If B is true, then isn't it safe to say that the system will be literally no different than how it was in the BG games, and therefore, it won't really "fix" any "degenerate gameplay"?

Edited January 24, 2014 by Stun

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Indeed. BG1's bandit camp quest is a good example of...well... just about everythng we've been talking about here.

 

And I think Josh would call killing the leader of the black talons (to get his armor and the 2000 xp that he's worth) when the quest/storyline doesn't require it Degenerate Gameplay. So of course, such behavior must be stamped out/discouraged at all costs. Including fun, and player freedom.

 

But hunting down all those trash mobs that I mention later in that post was not fun, it was mind-numbing boredom while I picked a nose it was that easy, and completely unnecessary as I had already done the quest, and so a perfect example of why degenerate gameplay like that is bad.  I also proposed how killing Taugosz could still be rewarded in an objective xp system quite well, you just gotta think of it like an achievement system, you don't need a quest for it but doing outstanding stuff can still be recognised and rewarded.

[Lephys]

I know. I get the argument.

 

The problem is that there's no difference between directly getting XP for your kills, and directly getting XP for kills because "killing things was the objective". It's literally the same thing.

That's... literally the point against which you keep arguing (even if inadvertently). You're like "Wait, objectives? (sorry... "achievements")? SOMETHING'S DEATH CAN NEVER BE ONE OF THOSE!"

 

I don't for the life of me know why it's so complicated, but you don't seem to understand the distinction between a specific achievement -- "this thing died/something died under these circumstances/in this situation" -- and just a successful action.

 

Anything could be an achievement (I'm just going to ignore the fact that "achievement" and "objective" are used to mean contextually the exact same thing in regard to the system's design, here, and only use the word "achievement" because it seems to make you happy), as you so masterfully admitted above, after a mere 2-3 full pages of argument against anyone who said that. Thus, it's all a matter of where you define the specific boundaries of what's an XP-worthy achievement, and what isn't.

 

In the "per-kill XP" system, something ceasing living is always an achievement. They just draw up a big XP table for all the living things in the game, because the rule is "if you end its life, you get XP." "We want to reward you for your achievements, not your body count" means just that; "the system by which we will decide when you are awarded XP will depend upon what we have deemed a worthy achievement and what we haven't, rather than, in previous systems, the death of any single thing in the entire world, regardless of the circumstances or existence of a contribution towards any given goal or end."

 

What they're saying there is simply this:

 

"In previous games, if you saw something and killed it, you got XP, no matter what. In PoE, it's going to be a little more specific than that. SOMEtimes, you might actually kill something and not get XP for it, depending on the circumstances."

 

Nowhere, in any of that, does anything ever declare that living-thing-deaths and/or combat victories are disqualified from being achievements. The word "achievement" doesn't exclude combat or killing in its definition, and they haven't specified beyond that that this is true.

 

Does this mean they can't possibly never represent any death or combat victory in the game with an XP-granting achievement? Of course not. What it means is that we know that we don't know we'll never receive XP for killing or combat victory. The key word there being "never."

 

For the record, there are values between "never" and "always," unless of course there's only one combat encounter/opponent in the entire game. Then it would obviously be binary.

 

So, want to be constructive? How's about discussing something we don't already know isn't necessarily true. We could, for example, discuss and break down examples scenarios, in which one might improperly design an achievement/XP rewards to fail to properly represent combat in a righteous fashion. Then we can all go "Yeah, that would be bad. In that situation, you'd need to make sure that (insert further constructive discussion here)."

 

Or, you can say one more time that we somehow know there won't be any XP, ever, for the death of ANYTHING, or ANY fighting that ever takes place in the entirety of the game. And we can all facepalm so ferociously that our skulls explode.

 

Disclaimer: This is literally my final gift of the benefit of the doubt to you, Stun, that you can actually be reasoned with.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Lephys

[Yonjuro]

 

I have just been playing Baldur's Gate tonight and I felt what happened tonight actually highlights the situation here nicely.  I was doing the bandit camp, I had managed to blag my way in and got into the main tent without any fights until then.  Once I had finished and accomplished my goal I could leave, without having another fight, but then that would mean missing out on the xp and loot from all the guys outside, including a particularly hard fight and highly rewarding one with the leader of the Blacktalons.  Now, objective xp would have given me the same xp for blagging past as it would have fighting them, and I would not then be able to 'cheat' more xp by just slotting everyone on the way out like I did tonight, for which I had no reason to do other than to Highlander their xp (I think we should call kill xp 'Highlandering it' from now on), but it would also mean missing out on a tough fight with a bossman.

Indeed. BG1's bandit camp quest is a good example of...well... just about everythng we've been talking about here.

 

And I think Josh would call killing the leader of the black talons (to get his armor and the 2000 xp that he's worth) when the quest/storyline doesn't require it Degenerate Gameplay. So of course, such behavior must be stamped out/discouraged at all costs. Including fun, and player freedom.

 

 

 I won't speak for Mr. Sawyer, but would be interested in his take on this example.

 

 My take on it is: Suppose you had quest XP in BG1 in addition to kill XP and you offer to join the bandits to solve the quest that way. You can then freely wander the bandit camp for as long as you like (except for Tazok's tent - at least, I think it might work that way; I've always just killed everyone).

 

 So, let's have Imoen set a thief trap. Then we'll rest. Repeat about 100 times and carpet the area with traps. Now solve the quest and then shoot an arrow at  someone outside. Everyone instantly dies from the traps. I think most of us would agree - degenerate gameplay but it does give you extra XP, so it might be tempting for a powergamer.

 

EDIT: Whoops, I forgot to summon a hoard of monsters before shooting the arrow. How embarrassing.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Yonjuro

[Stun]

My take on it is: Suppose you had quest XP in BG1 in addition to kill XP and you offer to join the bandits to solve the quest that way. You can then freely wander the bandit camp for as long as you like (except for Tazok's tent - at least, I think it might work that way; I've always just killed everyone).

 

So, let's have Imoen set a thief trap. Then we'll rest. Repeat about 100 times and carpet the area with traps. Now solve the quest and then shoot an arrow at  someone outside. Everyone instantly dies from the traps. I think most of us would agree - degenerate gameplay but it does give you extra XP, so it might be tempting for a powergamer.

No, I would not agree that this is degenerate gameplay. At all. And if I was DMing a situation like this in Pen & Paper, and my players were shrewd enough to infiltrate the camp and then secretly turn it into a trap-filled abyss as a goodbye gesture against the very bandits who've been terrorizing the sword coast, and they successfully pulled it all off, I would not only award them XP for every kill, I'd give them BONUS xp for being so stylish about it.

 

EDIT: Whoops, I forgot to summon a hoard of monsters before shooting the arrow. How embarrassing.

You also forgot to have your mage place a few skull traps in strategic areas around the camp. Edited January 24, 2014 by Stun

[Yonjuro]

Example #2. POE is a nice big world and you're dying to go out and start exploring those wilderness areas on the map. So you do. Once your party arrives, you start walking around. You stumble upon a pack of Ogres. They attack. You fight them. You kill them.

...

B) You get 300xp because it was an "encounter" and you "accomplished" a victory.

....

- If B is true, then isn't it safe to say that the system will be literally no different than how it was in the BG games, and therefore, it won't really "fix" any "degenerate gameplay"?

 

 I don't think it is safe to say that they will be no different.

 

 See my example in post 90 in this thread. This encounter could work the same way - you could get XP for doing whatever you did in that area, but you wouldn't get extra XP for exploiting respawns or some other feature of the map intended to make it more challenging (which, arguably, could be described as degenerate gameplay).

[Stun]

See my example in post 90 in this thread. This encounter could work the same way - you could get XP for doing whatever you did in that area, but you wouldn't get extra XP for exploiting respawns or some other feature of the map intended to make it more challenging (which, arguably, could be described as degenerate gameplay).

Then the solution is to eliminate respawns. NOT to do away with combat xp! Sheesh.

[Yonjuro]

 

My take on it is: Suppose you had quest XP in BG1 in addition to kill XP and you offer to join the bandits to solve the quest that way. You can then freely wander the bandit camp for as long as you like (except for Tazok's tent - at least, I think it might work that way; I've always just killed everyone).

 

So, let's have Imoen set a thief trap. Then we'll rest. Repeat about 100 times and carpet the area with traps. Now solve the quest and then shoot an arrow at  someone outside. Everyone instantly dies from the traps. I think most of us would agree - degenerate gameplay but it does give you extra XP, so it might be tempting for a powergamer.

No, I would not agree that this is degenerate gameplay. At all. And if I was DMing a situation like this in Pen & Paper, and my players were shrewd enough to infiltrate the camp and then secretly turn it into a trap-filled abyss as a goodbye gesture against the very bandits who've been terrorizing the sword coast, and they successfully pulled it all off, I would not only award them XP for every kill, I'd give them BONUS xp for being so stylish about it.

 

EDIT: Whoops, I forgot to summon a hoard of monsters before shooting the arrow. How embarrassing.

 

 

 Fair enough (and well put) - I'm not sure I agree that it is deserving of extra XP, but I see your point.

 

 That said, if you were designing the bandit camp encounter, an objective based XP system would allow you to do exactly what you've suggested. Is it fair to say that, in an objective XP-only system, you would be fine with the bandit camp encounter if it worked that way?

 

 

 

 

You also forgot to have your mage help out by placing a few skull traps in strategic areas around the camp.

 

   That's true, but I have done that in the final fight of the game (because, you know, If I can't walk in the center of the room, NO ONE can ), so I don't feel too bad about the omission here.

 

 

(EDIT: I should clarify that what I considered the 'degenerate' part is the rest 100 times to set traps. I like traps as much as anyone (and I like summoning hoards of monsters even more than most) - I just don't think I would have much fun setting 100 traps with a thief that can only set one between rest periods. )

Edited January 24, 2014 by Yonjuro

[Yonjuro]

 

See my example in post 90 in this thread. This encounter could work the same way - you could get XP for doing whatever you did in that area, but you wouldn't get extra XP for exploiting respawns or some other feature of the map intended to make it more challenging (which, arguably, could be described as degenerate gameplay).

Then the solution is to eliminate respawns. NOT to do away with combat xp! Sheesh.

 

 

Well, that's one solution and, in some cases, maybe a good solution, but, if you did away with respawns, you might make the blunder + rest spam option as viable as the fight intelligently option. 

[Stun]

That said, if you were designing the bandit camp encounter, an objective based XP system would allow you to do exactly what you've suggested. Is it fair to say that, in an objective XP-only system, you would be fine with the bandit camp encounter if it worked that way?

In Pen and paper?

Hmm....If it was an objective only system, then yes, obviously. But It'd be 2 objectives we're dealing with here and the XP rewards would be separate. The first objective, of course, would be the primary one: Getting into Tazok's tent and grabbing the documents.(non combat) The second objective would be to wipe out the bandit camp. (combat)

 

But then.... if I was lame enough to adopt a "no XP for body-counts" philosophy, It probably would not occur to me to even bother with having that second objective in the first place, and I probably would not award the party any XP for just marching through the camp and killing everyone.... unless, again, they did it in a particularly imaginative way.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Stun