Backer beta: Developer Impressions

[Marceror]

 

Combat in this game is a pointless high-risk chore that you are better off skipping.

 

I won't be skipping it

 

Than clearly you won't be playing the game correctly!

[Sarex]

I won't be skipping it

 

When you figure out that you can't get to the end of that quest/map, without resting more times then you have supplies, thus needing to go back to buy more and having nothing to show for all that, I'm sure you will.

[Azrael Ultima]

we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:

 

provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player.

 

go ahead. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

edited a double "that"

Ok, you get 1 level(or XP, doesn't matter much) every discrete time unit, regardless of your personal actions, until level cap is reached.

 

Pretty much the only option that is completely independant of playstyle, give them XP for something they have no control over whatsoever.

 

Incidentally, it's also one of the easiest to implement, as you can completely forgo any kind of tracking anything except the players current level and time spent, which is probably being done anyway.

[Gromnir]

 

you don't need more information.

Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons.

 

1)If there is content in this game that is not tied to a quest, your system doesn't address it.

2)If there are times when combat is forced/required, your system doesn't address it.

3)If the diplomatic route in a quest simply requires a single skill/stat check, while the combat route requires use of more than one player skill, your system does not take that into account.

4)If sneaking past an encounter doesn't grant loot rewards but intimidation and/or combat does, your system does not address it.

5)If solving a dungeon puzzle requires no character skill and rewards XP, but killing the dungeon level's inhabitants requires the use of several of your character's skills but Doesn't reward XP, your system is a joke.

 

In light of the above, I'd have to conclude that BG2's system, while still flawed, is certainly a better system than the one you are proposing.

 

Hey Gromnir, that was SIMPLE.

 

actually, quest xp addresses all your concerns by simply not dividing those individual aspects into unnecessarily minor parts. you get xp for achieving major goals, period. you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them?  why?. obsidian actually hearkens back to old pnp roots and observes that it doesn't matter what route you take to achieve the ultimate goal of the quest. 

 

this is not complex. you are adding complexity where it is not needed. you should not need a metaphorical pat on the head for every success in the game. 

 

quest/task is infinitely easy and it is impossible to break... save for when it is bugged as it currently is.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps to stay on topic, Gromnir is still looking for depth from the PoE world. the small portion o' the game is, we believe, intentionally limiting our exposure to world lore and depth, so we cannot see how zeits can be impressed by what we has seen thus far. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by Gromnir

[Marceror]

Love how everyone is totally ignoring the moderators. I'd say this thread is overdue for a lock.

[Helm]

Love how everyone is totally ignoring the moderators. I'd say this thread is overdue for a lock.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Obsidian would have been honest when they pitched the game. The gameplay of this game doesn't resemble Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale at all.

[RedSocialKnight]

I am genuinely interested in George Ziets' opinions, and they appear only in this thread.

 

I have genuinely no interest in the stupid pissing contest that's arisen over kill XP, and it already appears in a million other threads.

 

If there is one -- one! -- thread that it would have been nice to see stay on topic, it was this one.

[Gfted1]

you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them?  why?.

I think it could serve as incentive / reward. Lets you know you are making incremental improvements.

[Gfted1]

Love how everyone is totally ignoring the moderators. I'd say this thread is overdue for a lock.

Do you see personal attacks since TrueNeutral's request? If so, every single post has a report button for posters to use and we request that you do so. We cannot moderate every slap fight or person slamming the door on their way out (to teach us a lesson).

[Marceror]

 

Love how everyone is totally ignoring the moderators. I'd say this thread is overdue for a lock.

Do you see personal attacks since TrueNeutral's request? If so, every single post has a report button for posters to use and we request that you do so. We cannot moderate every slap fight or person slamming the door on their way out (to teach us a lesson).

 

I was more referring to this moderator comment:

"Also, if you want to discuss this specific issue in more depth I'd suggest you make a seperate thread - this has gone long past going off-topic from discussing developer impressions."

 

We're still not talking about developer impression as far as I can tell. But my comment was made more in passing than with the intent to "back seat moderate".

[Gromnir]

 

you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them?  why?.

I think it could serve as incentive / reward. Lets you know you are making incremental improvements.

 

as we said, what you suggest is a metaphorical gold star on timmy's homework... which has merit. timmy likes getting the pat on the head. nevertheless, is not that you is failing to get a lump sum o' experience for the quest, but you want the incremental reward for small actions. very well. address the same challenge we posed earlier, the same one that confounded stun

 

"we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

 

as soon as you give rewards for individual actions, you must necessarily begin a tedious balancing challenge. so, show us the system that is as simple, elegant and flawless as quest/task. show us a system that will require as little in the way o' developer resources. am admitting that we is stymied in our attempts to come up with such a system, but if you may do so, we applaud you and recommend you send off your plan to obsidian forthwith.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we keep forgetting zeits focus. so, please end PoE better than motb. a plane spanning battle v. gods that eventual ends in a mano-y-mano id v super-ego battle is an underwhelming resolution.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Gromnir

[Sartoris]

 

 

you don't need more information.

Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons.

 

1)If there is content in this game that is not tied to a quest, your system doesn't address it.

2)If there are times when combat is forced/required, your system doesn't address it.

3)If the diplomatic route in a quest simply requires a single skill/stat check, while the combat route requires use of more than one player skill, your system does not take that into account.

4)If sneaking past an encounter doesn't grant loot rewards but intimidation and/or combat does, your system does not address it.

5)If solving a dungeon puzzle requires no character skill and rewards XP, but killing the dungeon level's inhabitants requires the use of several of your character's skills but Doesn't reward XP, your system is a joke.

 

In light of the above, I'd have to conclude that BG2's system, while still flawed, is certainly a better system than the one you are proposing.

 

Hey Gromnir, that was SIMPLE.

 

actually, quest xp addresses all your concerns by simply not dividing those individual aspects into unnecessarily minor parts. you get xp for achieving major goals, period. you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them?  why?. obsidian actually hearkens back to old pnp roots and observes that it doesn't matter what route you take to achieve the ultimate goal of the quest. 

 

this is not complex. you are adding complexity where it is not needed. you should not need a metaphorical pat on the head for every success in the game. 

 

quest/task is infinitely easy and it is impossible to break... save for when it is bugged as it currently is.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Gromnir, I like you. I think you contribute very sensible and good ideas.

 

However, in this one very limited, highlighted, case above, you have totally missed the mark.

 

Its time for this old grognard to break out his library and school you. Here is a quote from the original pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons rulebook

 

 

As characters meet monsters in combat and defeat them and as they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain "experience". This adds to their experience point (EP) total and gradually moves them up through the levels of their class.

 

What follows in the book is a list of how much experience a monster provides based on its hit die.

 

Now, AD&D, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, and Pathfinder all include the experience gains by monster's slain. It of course remains an option for a DM to award experience based on quests and other things, but that is not the core experience mechanic supported by "old pnp roots."

 

I think it is healthy to have disagreement and discussion about the game mechanics, but please check your "fact" statements to make sure they are indeed correct lest you build a house on a foundation of sand.

[Sedrefilos]

 

 

Regarding quest only xp, one thing that I'm not totally comfortable with is the fact that one of the key outcomes of xp/leveling up, is you become a more potent combatant. How does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat?

Brilliant post!

 

In the same way as they become better at lock picking by solving fed ex quests or gettng better at conversation while crafting a fancy item. XP is a abstract unrealistic way of tracking progress.

 

There is always the Elder Scrolls experience where you become better in what you train more. But I don't believe it'll fit here.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

you don't need more information.

Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons.

 

1)If there is content in this game that is not tied to a quest, your system doesn't address it.

2)If there are times when combat is forced/required, your system doesn't address it.

3)If the diplomatic route in a quest simply requires a single skill/stat check, while the combat route requires use of more than one player skill, your system does not take that into account.

4)If sneaking past an encounter doesn't grant loot rewards but intimidation and/or combat does, your system does not address it.

5)If solving a dungeon puzzle requires no character skill and rewards XP, but killing the dungeon level's inhabitants requires the use of several of your character's skills but Doesn't reward XP, your system is a joke.

 

In light of the above, I'd have to conclude that BG2's system, while still flawed, is certainly a better system than the one you are proposing.

 

Hey Gromnir, that was SIMPLE.

 

actually, quest xp addresses all your concerns by simply not dividing those individual aspects into unnecessarily minor parts. you get xp for achieving major goals, period. you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them?  why?. obsidian actually hearkens back to old pnp roots and observes that it doesn't matter what route you take to achieve the ultimate goal of the quest. 

 

this is not complex. you are adding complexity where it is not needed. you should not need a metaphorical pat on the head for every success in the game. 

 

quest/task is infinitely easy and it is impossible to break... save for when it is bugged as it currently is.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Gromnir, I like you. I think you contribute very sensible and good ideas.

 

However, in this one very limited, highlighted, case above, you have totally missed the mark.

 

Its time for this old grognard to break out his library and school you. Here is a quote from the original pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons rulebook

 

 

As characters meet monsters in combat and defeat them and as they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain "experience". This adds to their experience point (EP) total and gradually moves them up through the levels of their class.

 

What follows in the book is a list of how much experience a monster provides based on its hit die.

 

Now, AD&D, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, and Pathfinder all include the experience gains by monster's slain. It of course remains an option for a DM to award experience based on quests and other things, but that is not the core experience mechanic supported by "old pnp roots."

 

I think it is healthy to have disagreement and discussion about the game mechanics, but please check your "fact" statements to make sure they are indeed correct lest you build a house on a foundation of sand.

 

am gonna break out old d&d rule books if we must, but you is misreading. xp awards were given at the END of adventures. sure, you gain experience as you progress, but the actual awards happen at end of adventure and is not tabulated ad hoc.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we will note that 3e changed the dynamic as it were far easier to award encounter xp, though typical xp were still awarded lump sum after adventure completion.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Gromnir

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

In most games I've Gm'd, I've gone the quest XP route because I didn't want to penalize players who came up with good ways to avoid combat to achieve the goal of the quest. This resulted in players trying to think outside the box when looking for solutions to the obstacles I put in their way. Obviously PoE will not have the flexibility as a Gm, but it is nice to know that if I can solve a quest through means other than combat I won't be missing out on XP.

 

And to further spin this off topic, I actually like PoE combat despite the bugs. I find it to be fun to shoot lions with oldtymey guns and beat beetles to death with morningstars.

[Panteleimon]

 

I won't be skipping it

 

When you figure out that you can't get to the end of that quest/map, without resting more times then you have supplies, thus needing to go back to buy more and having nothing to show for all that, I'm sure you will.

 

 

Have you actually played the beta? Even while making relatively balanced use of supplies on Hard with Expert Mode enabled I never ran totally dry on supplies. I just had to actually think about what I was doing and if it was worth heading back to the inn to regroup and refit. Exploring an entire spider-infested cave system doesn't have to happen in a day.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Panteleimon

[Gromnir]

ah, actual quote from old D&D:

 

"DIVIDING XP: Treasure is divided by the party, but the DM handles all the XP awards. At the end of an adventure, the DM totals the XP from all treasures recovered plus all monsters defeated and then divides the total by the number of surviving characters (both player characters and NPCs) in the party."

 

further goes on to mentions 'bout awarding bonuses for clever and creative resolutions n' such, but fact remains that old d&d gave awards post adventure.

 

huzzah. we now have clarity.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 26, 2014 by Gromnir

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

 

Don't be disingenuous, Helm. You don't want this to be Diablo.

You're right, I don't want to kill everything. But I don't want combat to be a pointless chore either.

 

And happily it won't.

 

Yes it will be. Combat in this game is a pointless high-risk chore that you are better off skipping.

 

Having to grind encounters for xp is what makes combat a chore.  The reward is in the potential for discovering some kind of loot/guarded secret.

Edited August 26, 2014 by DigitalCrack

[Sartoris]

 

 

 

 

you don't need more information.

Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons.

 

1)If there is content in this game that is not tied to a quest, your system doesn't address it.

2)If there are times when combat is forced/required, your system doesn't address it.

3)If the diplomatic route in a quest simply requires a single skill/stat check, while the combat route requires use of more than one player skill, your system does not take that into account.

4)If sneaking past an encounter doesn't grant loot rewards but intimidation and/or combat does, your system does not address it.

5)If solving a dungeon puzzle requires no character skill and rewards XP, but killing the dungeon level's inhabitants requires the use of several of your character's skills but Doesn't reward XP, your system is a joke.

 

In light of the above, I'd have to conclude that BG2's system, while still flawed, is certainly a better system than the one you are proposing.

 

Hey Gromnir, that was SIMPLE.

 

actually, quest xp addresses all your concerns by simply not dividing those individual aspects into unnecessarily minor parts. you get xp for achieving major goals, period. you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them?  why?. obsidian actually hearkens back to old pnp roots and observes that it doesn't matter what route you take to achieve the ultimate goal of the quest. 

 

this is not complex. you are adding complexity where it is not needed. you should not need a metaphorical pat on the head for every success in the game. 

 

quest/task is infinitely easy and it is impossible to break... save for when it is bugged as it currently is.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Gromnir, I like you. I think you contribute very sensible and good ideas.

 

However, in this one very limited, highlighted, case above, you have totally missed the mark.

 

Its time for this old grognard to break out his library and school you. Here is a quote from the original pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons rulebook

 

 

As characters meet monsters in combat and defeat them and as they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain "experience". This adds to their experience point (EP) total and gradually moves them up through the levels of their class.

 

What follows in the book is a list of how much experience a monster provides based on its hit die.

 

Now, AD&D, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, and Pathfinder all include the experience gains by monster's slain. It of course remains an option for a DM to award experience based on quests and other things, but that is not the core experience mechanic supported by "old pnp roots."

 

I think it is healthy to have disagreement and discussion about the game mechanics, but please check your "fact" statements to make sure they are indeed correct lest you build a house on a foundation of sand.

 

am gonna break out old d&d rule books if we must, but you is misreading. xp awards were given at the END of adventures. sure, you gain experience as you progress, but the actual awards happen at end of adventure and is not tabulated ad hoc.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

Unfortunatly, the problem with Pillars of Eternity isn't that experience is awarded only after a quest is finished. The problem is that killing monsters doesn't award experience yet it is a central component of what the player does in the game.

 

My point with the D&D rulebooks is that they did indeed award experience based on killing monsters. It doesn't matter if you didn't record the experience on your character sheet until the adventure was over. You got the points because you killed monsters.

 

But as other posters have pointed out, this horse has been beat to death, resurrected and beat to death again. So I'll simply state the following:

 

I would like to be awarded experience for overcoming challenges in the game that require resource expenditures from me personally (mental involvement in the plot, tactics, etc) as well as in-game resource expenditures. By in-game I mean that if I need to use camping supplies because I chose to kill monsters instead of sneaking past them I would like the game to award more experience that the option not requiring the resources would.

 

Now this would allow someone who is metagaming to design a strategy whereby the extracted the most possible amount of experiences out of a quest. So what. If they want to play this way, give them the choice. Again, I am hopeing this game can say as close to the IE games as possible.

 

So why introduce this change? Why do the devs keep driving the design away from IE-like games? That is not what Pillars of Eternity was supposed to be.

[Azrael Ultima]

 

am gonna break out old d&d rule books if we must, but you is misreading. xp awards were given at the END of adventures. sure, you gain experience as you progress, but the actual awards happen at end of adventure and is not tabulated ad hoc.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we will note that 3e changed the dynamic as it were far easier to award encounter xp, though typical xp were still awarded lump sum after adventure completion.

 

But that is only a change in when you get your combat XP, not whether you do. You still got XP for killing things.

This is a part where cRPGs are different for practical reasons(imagine you got all your XP at the end of BG... fat lot of good it would do you).

 

Though, personally, i'd prefer seeing the(same) reward for any manner of defeating an enemy, including talking them down(where appropriate) or sneaking around them if they are intended to block of an area, but only once.(So you don't get XP again for killing the guys you just talked out of fighting you)

[Wintersong]

I think that the rule in AD&D was to give exp after each session? Or at least before starting the next one. I think we used to do that. Quite sure that I granted exp for defeating the encounters, even if that meant not killing the monsters but finding other ways to win. Enhanced later in newer editions.

 

In any case, the DM determines how to award xps in his campaign. He determines everything. The D&D experience of one player may be totally different from another player's. Core books are guidelines. As with campaign settings, use what works for you (/your players) and change what doesn't. If a system, once finished, works then it doesn't matter if it doesn't look like others. And PoE doesn't use D&D. Or L5R. Or AFMBE. Or WoD. Or...

[Azrael Ultima]

Now this would allow someone who is metagaming to design a strategy whereby the extracted the most possible amount of experiences out of a quest. So what. If they want to play this way, give them the choice. Again, I am hopeing this game can say as close to the IE games as possible.

Metagamers will always find a way to metagame. Trying to prevent that in a single player game is both futile and pointless.

[Panteleimon]

Where was it advertised that PoE would be a D&D game? I think the maximum extent of what was said was it would have exploration that evokes Baldur's Gate and combat that evokes Icewind Dale, along with themes and writing that evoke Planescape: Torment.

 

Nowhere in there does it say that it will directly copy/emulate any or all systems from those games.

 

I do find it strange that much of the loudest teeth-knashing is coming from people that didn't back the kickstarter, haven't backed the game and haven't played the beta. At least if those little forum icons are anything to go by. Unless those aren't accurate.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Panteleimon

[PrimeJunta]

FWIW I stopped awarding combat XP very early in my DM'ing career. Lately I've gotten really lazy; I just decide roughly how quickly I want my players to advance per session, and award about that much every time, adjusted up or down depending on how creative they got, how big the challenges were, and how much they accomplished, with individual bonuses for players who did especially well.

 

I have a homebrew system that takes this one step further -- XP has other uses besides character development; I playe it into a pool during play, which also has in-play uses (e.g. some extra-powerful special abilities). Anyone can play XP from that pool during a session. At the end of the session I throw in a lump reward and the group decides how much to spend on party resources and how to divvy up the remainder. They then get to spend that on individual character development, and anything they don't spend goes back into the pool and can be used next time. Saves me a lot of bother trying to remember who did what and be fair about the rewards.

 

Probably wouldn't work for many groups though.

Edited August 26, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Gromnir]

"So why introduce this change? Why do the devs keep driving the design away from IE-like games? That is not what Pillars of Eternity was supposed to be."

 

asked and answered. we never denied that d&d gave xp for killing stuff, but it were done in large lump sums, just as PoE awards in large lump sums. the thing is, d&d evolved from chainmail and tabletop wargaming and the role-playing in d&d weren't actual handled by rules. d&d were a a very shallow combat mechanics set o' rules, and the role-play were left up to players and the dm. PoE, thankfully, is a bit more evolved than old white box. we get xp for sneaky and diplomatic and we don't get xp simple for acquiring gold pieces. 

 

keep in mind that PoE is also a crpg. there is a single DM for literal thousands o' people, and the dm is dumb... mute. you don't appeal to the dm 'cause the PoE dm is a bit o' software. you cannot ask dm why bob is getting 2x as much xp as is you simply 'cause you made the mistake o' building a more stealthy or diplomatic character.

 

but again, we addressed the why and we posed the challenge. like it or not, role-play games has evolved and even the ie games you point to gave xp for disarming traps, picking locks, learning spells and other stuff. in point o' fact, the first thing a dual-class fighter-mage could do to gain a level or two would be to memorize a stockpile o' scrolls and add them to his spell book. it were silly and nonsensical. in 10 seconds we could go from level 1 mage to level 2 or even three simply by adding spells to spellbook. use ie as your guide is a bad idea.

 

"we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

 

am gonna keep asking til we get an answer.

 

HA! Good Fun!