Backer beta: Developer Impressions

[Monte Carlo]

* sigh *

 

In a combat-heavy game, the skill (such as it is) comes from tactics, choice of weapons, abilities and spells.

 

This is a combat-heavy game. FFS we've got a mega-dungeon. Yet the 'soft skills' approach requires the 'Tormenters' (they are quite often PS:T fans) to dumpstat a couple of conversation skillz and indulge in some content tourism for the same XP.

 

How are the Paths of Od Nua, allegedly a nod to the classic dungeon crawl, going to work with no XP for killing enemies in a monster-infested labyrinth? Is the party that fights and kills the dragon, spending blood and treasure to do so, really going to get rewarded the same as the person who dumps all his or her skill points into stealth and negotiation skills?

 

Seriously, I think I want my money back. I don't actually believe I have to explain this stuff.

[Marceror]

I don't really understand the arguments of the pro exp-for-kill party. I'm not particularly against it, but I find the obsidian solution ok for the scope of the game. The experience for kills is still there, its considered when attributing the experience "pack" at the end of a quest or at certain checkpoints. The system is made in a way that the experience for kills is granted even to those who resolve the quest in a peaceful way. It's made in a way that consider every encounter you have to go through to reach the end of the quest, even if you need to go to a place more than one time (so it considers the killing of a group of enemies multiple times).

 

I like it.

 

What's so hard to understand about this?

 

Adventurers walk into a clearing. Adventurers are taken off guard by an ambush. The adventurers rally together and fight as a united force to overcome the ambushers. The battle is difficult, and the adventurers sustain a variety of wounds in the process, but nothing life threatening. They defeat the ambushers, and learn more about their own capabilities as individuals, and as a group.

 

This is the very definition of what it means to gain experience. You go through life and learn from your, well, your experiences. This ambush need not be tied to some larger quest in order for it to provide that experience.

 

Note that I'm not necessarily in the "pro xp for killing camp". It's what I'm used to and it makes sense to me. But I'm choosing to be in the "keep an open mind and see what Obsidian delivers camp".

[makryu]

I think the xp system needs changes, yes. The gains need to be more apparent and frequent. I didn't get the feeling of a steady progression while playing. This may have something to do with the bugs. However, I can't say I felt any less compelled to fight. Not even once has the "but I'll get no xp" thought crossed my mind. In fact, after I ended a few encounters without fighting, I felt liberated, because in previous IE games I more than once opted out of a peaceful solution (or went to kill the NPC I had peacefully interacted with afterwards) because of the thought of losing xp. I think that is the design goal behind this decision and it seems to be reasonably successful even in the beta.

 

That doesn't mean, however, that they can't improve. I agree that the lack of non-combat abilities, the amount of random combat encounters and a general lack of options to meaningfully avoid random combat does quite a bit to hurt the developers' intentions. I imagine how nice it would feel if you could, I dunno, use your survival skill to simulate some natural prey sounds, drawing attention of nearby creatures out of the party's path; or maybe use some scent-oriented creature ingredient on the party members to walk among creatures of that type undetected; or even use mechanics to activate some environment element which would get rid of some creatures for you. IMO, the lack of non-combat options for dealing with non-quest encounters is what hurts the most the no xp idea.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

IMO, a SoZ style world map would've been awesome for this game and would've given quite a bit of ways to avoid random encounters.

[CatatonicMan]

So basically this is the ole "I win, you lose" argument that I used to use on my sister when I was 7. Whatever gets you through the day, pal.

 

He probably means something more along the lines of, "Obsidian chose to do it this way, and it's unlikely that anything we say here will cause them to change their minds."

 

That would be true even if the tables were turned and XP for kills was front and center.

Edited August 26, 2014 by CatatonicMan

[xsubtownerx]

I agree with most of his first impression. Minus the turn-based combat thing. Although I wouldn't mind if it went that direction.

[Marceror]

 

So basically this is the ole "I win, you lose" argument that I used to use on my sister when I was 7. Whatever gets you through the day, pal.

 

He probably means something more along the lines of, "Obsidian chose to do it this way, and it's unlikely that anything we say here will cause them to change their minds."

 

That would be true even if the tables were turned and XP for kills was front and center.

 

 "I win the argument because the devs have already made their decision" isn't how debating works. The debates here are largely theoretical.

 

A reasonable case for a particular idea is no less a reasonable case because Obsidian happened to choose a different direction.

[Sartoris]

"You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine."

 

and how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?  quest/task avoids such balancing.

 

 

and around we go. serious. is 2002 all over again and nothing new is spontaneously appearing.

 

*shrug*

 

doesn't matter though regardless o' what you think o' Gromnir pov, obsidian/bis has disagreed with you for a decade or more, and they disagreed all during development o' PoE. is yet another corpse on the pile o' would-be ad hoc xp proponents. is getting a bit fetid, but we expect the corpse pile will continue to grow.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?" 

 

Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect.

 

Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed:

 

KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp

NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp

Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp

Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp

Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp

South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp 

 

Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills.

 

In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest.

 

I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then?

 

The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well?

[Yonjuro]

 

 

 Yes, very clever (for sufficiently small values of clever), but, since we're in pedantic mode, leaving the game running as a play style is a huge advantage and a speed run would put a player at a huge disadvantage in your XP system. I know you weren't proposing this as a serious solution to Gromnir's challenge, but these examples only show the ridiculousness of your proposed solution, not to the challenge (which does have a solution, but it is at least as asinine as the time based XP idea).

 

They aren't at a (dis)advantage in regards to XP gain per timeframe, which by definition is the same for everybody.

 

 Completely true and completely irrelevant. The sleeping player will hit the level cap before doing anything. The speed run player will fail to hit the level cap by the game's end. One style is clearly advantaged.

 

 

 

Anyway, the point was that any solution fulfilling his requirements must be one that is utterly retarded as a gameplay element.

 

 

Your example doesn't even show the existence of something that satisfies Gromnir's requirements and you are claiming that it shows that everything that satisfies his requirements is absurd (or 'utterly retarded' if you like that better). 

 

 

 

I wonder if anyone on the pro-kill-XP side actually think they're making any persuasive arguments.

I'd say they are about as persuasive as the arguments of the anti-kill-XP side.

 

 

 Of course you would. You just committed two logical fallacies and claimed victory.

 

 You're entitled to your opinion, but your argument does not support your opinion.

[Marceror]

I agree with most of his first impression. Minus the turn-based combat thing. Although I wouldn't mind if it went that direction.

Your post would appear to be on topic, and it would seem you should be commended for that.

 

But upon further consideration, this post has been off topic for so long now that on topic is actually off topic at this point. In which case, you should probably be admonished for making comments that seem to be completely out of left field!

[Gromnir]

actually, particularly as you is in the backer beta section, the observation that Obsidian Has Already Made Their Decision is quite compelling. the likelihood that suddenly obsidian will reverse course, give numerical xp kill values for every critter and attempt to similar provide balanced diplomacy, sneak, lockpick awards while making sure to avoid all the potential exploits that come with such awards is seeming a bit fanciful.

 

if you wanna scroll up the board to Obsidian General and look for Computer and Console, you may have a more appropriate venue for discussing theoretical best approaches for games not yet in development.

 

this bird is pretty much cooked.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Matt516]

My $0.02:

 

Penny 1:

Time-based XP - extremely, extremely silly idea. Props for thinking out of the box, but seriously, no. That would be just.... the worst.

 

Penny 2:

Combat-based XP - there's a case for and against. Much of it is based on personal preference. So people (on both sides) should stop pretending that there is a right and wrong answer. Ultimately, even when both sides are being completely logical, some people will want combat XP and some will not. Neither is an objectively better way of doing things. So chill.

[Marceror]

actually, particularly as you is in the backer beta section, the observation that Obsidian Has Already Made Their Decision is quite compelling. the likelihood that suddenly obsidian will reverse course, give numerical xp kill values for every critter and attempt to similar provide balanced diplomacy, sneak, lockpick awards while making sure to avoid all the potential exploits that come with such awards is seeming a bit fanciful.

 

if you wanna scroll up the board to Obsidian General and look for Computer and Console, you may have a more appropriate venue for discussing theoretical best approaches for games not yet in development.

 

this bird is pretty much cooked.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

It's compelling from a "this is what Obsidian has decided" point of view, but not necessarily from a "this is what I believe would be best" point of view. I see no reason that latter category of discussion can't happen here. To the best of my understanding the devs are interested in our feedback, and KS update 84 states as much.

 

I certainly wouldn't want to see people withhold their opinions just because Obsidian already made certain decisions.

 

And at the end of the day, who knows what decisions they may end up changing based on backer feedback. So debate on, I say.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Marceror

[Stun]

all builds have combat efficacy. however, as this is a cRPg, it allows us to solve quests via sneaky and or diplomatic means. our first encounter with the ogre in the caves were solved diplomatically... or sneaky, depending on how you look at it. should we have been robbed of all xp for quest completion because we chose to complete quest other than through violence?

 

c'mon folks, be serious.

 

HA! Good Fun!

What do you mean, sneaky? You can't solve the Ogre quest by stealth in any way. Thus, one who role-plays a sneaky character is shut out from XP/quest rewards in that quest unless he changes his style of game play.

[Monte Carlo]

* shrugs *

 

This is always going to be personal interpretation.

 

I was sold a spiritual successor to the I.E. games. This feels like a sheep in wolf's clothing. Period.

[Sartoris]

* shrugs *

 

This is always going to be personal interpretation.

 

I was sold a spiritual successor to the I.E. games. This feels like a sheep in wolf's clothing. Period.

 

I can't agree more. Although since I didn't really have a chance to back the game before now I can't really say I've been "sold" anything.

[Marceror]

* shrugs *

 

This is always going to be personal interpretation.

 

I was sold a spiritual successor to the I.E. games. This feels like a sheep in wolf's clothing. Period.

I get where you're coming from. That said, Dragon Age Origins was also touted as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. I loved DAO (less so the second title, and I haven't even bothered with the 3rd), but in terms of looking for a spiritual successor to the I.E games, what I've seen of PoE gets us about 1,000% closer to that mark than DAO did. So some things in life are relative.

 

I may not be thrilled with every decision, but I still feel like there's a worthy successor in the works with PoE. Though it's still way too early to make a final judgment on that.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Marceror

[Wintersong]

 

"You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine."

 

and how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?  quest/task avoids such balancing.

 

 

and around we go. serious. is 2002 all over again and nothing new is spontaneously appearing.

 

*shrug*

 

doesn't matter though regardless o' what you think o' Gromnir pov, obsidian/bis has disagreed with you for a decade or more, and they disagreed all during development o' PoE. is yet another corpse on the pile o' would-be ad hoc xp proponents. is getting a bit fetid, but we expect the corpse pile will continue to grow.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?" 

 

Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect.

 

Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed:

 

KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp

NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp

Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp

Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp

Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp

South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp 

 

Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills.

 

In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest.

 

I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then?

 

The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well?

 

If they worked in a d20/D&D game, they have to use xp on kills. Seriously. If they do an expansion pack for a game by another company and it has xp for killing, what are they supposed to do? Sequels (and not spiritual successors) sin of similar stuff to expansion packs. New games can use anything that the devs want. That they don't want xp on killing for PoE means absolutely nothing about what they did/tought in 2010 or 2014 or in the past century. Unless you are Doctor Who or have a time machine built into a DeLorean, past is past.

 

Now rant because I say so (aka feel free to ignore the rest).

 

D&D has evolved quite a bit since its origins. Hell, new D&D even encourages roleplaying in a big way compared to previous editions. Characters are supposed to beat encounters and get experience from them. An encounter can be anything: from killing an annoying kobold bard to avoid a public confrontation between two factions. The means by how the players solve the situation is meaningless per se. The DM just designs the adventure, populates it with proper encounters/rewards and the xp of those encounters can be given any time or at the end. Whatever the DM, and not the rulebook, says. That is what a real cRPG should encourage. It doesn't mean not getting xp from killing stuff, it means not getting it as you are used to. It's abstract enough that you get experience by killing wolves and use that experience to level up pickpocketing. Or gain experience disabling some traps with your rogue class and get enough experience to raise your fighter class.

 

Random encounters in such a system shouldn't exist. Or be special cases that break the rules. But monsters in a quest map, should be part of the xp budget of the quests to solve in there. The beetles and spiders to reach the cave for the farmer's quest? Should be considered. That you deviate exploring and find wolves? That must have been considered too.

 

Not getting xp on kill doesn't mean getting less. If the game is well designed you still get the same no matter what you do. It may require lots of scripts and whatever but far from being impossible.

[Stun]

 

As for the ego stroking, well isn't that the point of games?

No, it isn't. At least not all games, or this game.

 

Yes it is. Ego stroking is a stated design goal of this game.

 

Mentioned by the devs in one of the updates in fact

 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/317536

 

Avellone sums it up at @3:40 of the video if you don't feel like reading. And nothing he's saying is unique. People don't play games for the purpose of being put down and belittled.

[Zansatsu]

My $0.02:

 

Penny 1:

Time-based XP - extremely, extremely silly idea. Props for thinking out of the box, but seriously, no. That would be just.... the worst.

 

Penny 2:

Combat-based XPthere's a case for and against. Much of it is based on personal preference. So people (on both sides) should stop pretending that there is a right and wrong answer. Ultimately, even when both sides are being completely logical, some people will want combat XP and some will not. Neither is an objectively better way of doing things. So chill.

This has been my point the entire time so I just wanted to vocalize how true this is. The most frustrating part of this discussion is that people keep saying each system is somehow better than the other. Really it should be which is most popular and what will get the most people playing and interested. I have no real objection to quest xp only other than I won't enjoy it as much and this will affect replay for me. I want the game to be popular and as fun as possible so I can get more games that scratch my crpg itch.

[Volourn]

I don't think my question's been answered. Why does PE have a worse xp system than SRR which actually had a good xp system? Very weird that this game wants to dumb down their xp system.

[Sartoris]

 

 

"You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine."

 

and how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?  quest/task avoids such balancing.

 

 

and around we go. serious. is 2002 all over again and nothing new is spontaneously appearing.

 

*shrug*

 

doesn't matter though regardless o' what you think o' Gromnir pov, obsidian/bis has disagreed with you for a decade or more, and they disagreed all during development o' PoE. is yet another corpse on the pile o' would-be ad hoc xp proponents. is getting a bit fetid, but we expect the corpse pile will continue to grow.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?" 

 

Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect.

 

Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed:

 

KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp

NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp

Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp

Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp

Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp

South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp 

 

Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills.

 

In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest.

 

I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then?

 

The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well?

 

If they worked in a d20/D&D game, they have to use xp on kills. Seriously. If they do an expansion pack for a game by another company and it has xp for killing, what are they supposed to do? Sequels (and not spiritual successors) sin of similar stuff to expansion packs. New games can use anything that the devs want. That they don't want xp on killing for PoE means absolutely nothing about what they did/tought in 2010 or 2014 or in the past century. Unless you are Doctor Who or have a time machine built into a DeLorean, past is past.

 

Now rant because I say so (aka feel free to ignore the rest).

 

D&D has evolved quite a bit since its origins. Hell, new D&D even encourages roleplaying in a big way compared to previous editions. Characters are supposed to beat encounters and get experience from them. An encounter can be anything: from killing an annoying kobold bard to avoid a public confrontation between two factions. The means by how the players solve the situation is meaningless per se. The DM just designs the adventure, populates it with proper encounters/rewards and the xp of those encounters can be given any time or at the end. Whatever the DM, and not the rulebook, says. That is what a real cRPG should encourage. It doesn't mean not getting xp from killing stuff, it means not getting it as you are used to. It's abstract enough that you get experience by killing wolves and use that experience to level up pickpocketing. Or gain experience disabling some traps with your rogue class and get enough experience to raise your fighter class.

 

Random encounters in such a system shouldn't exist. Or be special cases that break the rules. But monsters in a quest map, should be part of the xp budget of the quests to solve in there. The beetles and spiders to reach the cave for the farmer's quest? Should be considered. That you deviate exploring and find wolves? That must have been considered too.

 

Not getting xp on kill doesn't mean getting less. If the game is well designed you still get the same no matter what you do. It may require lots of scripts and whatever but far from being impossible.

 

 

I really don't see what would have prevented them from implementing quest only xp in NWN2. It was their own game and really only shared a name with the first NWN.

 

Likewise, I can't see what would have prevented it in KOTOR II or New Vegas or even DSIII for that matter. Would it have been strange. Of course. The system itself is strange already.

 

And I'll go ahead and point out that Alpha Protocal was a new game. So was South Park.

 

But the real reason I brought up those games was because Gromnir was once again trying to rely on a complete misunderstanding of history to back up points he was making. If there is one thing I can't stand its a person who makes up their own "facts".

 

I don't mind anyone expressing their opinion. I will agree with many above posters that ultimately this entire issue boils down to what peoples preferences are. Mine are strongly on the side of providing xp of all types, kill xp, skill xp, dialogue xp, quest xp, etc.

[Gromnir]

 

"You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine."

 

and how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?  quest/task avoids such balancing.

 

 

and around we go. serious. is 2002 all over again and nothing new is spontaneously appearing.

 

*shrug*

 

doesn't matter though regardless o' what you think o' Gromnir pov, obsidian/bis has disagreed with you for a decade or more, and they disagreed all during development o' PoE. is yet another corpse on the pile o' would-be ad hoc xp proponents. is getting a bit fetid, but we expect the corpse pile will continue to grow.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?" 

 

Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect.

 

Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed:

 

KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp

NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp

Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp

Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp

Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp

South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp 

 

Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills.

 

In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest.

 

I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then?

 

The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well?

 

it might be worth noting that all games you mentioned other than ap, which weren't genuine a rpg anyway, is expansions... and you really don't know what is straw man. it did occur to you that expansions might be forcing limitations on the developer o' the expansion seeing as how it ain't obsidian's licence or ip?

 

*eye roll*

 

is not your fault you weren't here for bg3 or fo3, so you didn't get the full arguments from the bis and obsidian developers, but this is one topic where you simple couldn't be more wrong if you tried. josh, in particular, were brutal with the ad hoc proponents.  this game has also been in development for more than simple the week the beta has been available and the obsidians no doubt reexamined the quest xp issue during development.  

 

so, again,  "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."

 

still no adequate response. surprised? no.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  'cause maybe missed, but there seems to be great misunderstanding 'bout xp awards for d&d pnp at the time o' the ie games

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494840

Edited August 27, 2014 by Gromnir

[colbykhor]

Totally with the guy, no exp after a combat is rather weird. 

[Gromnir]

 

all builds have combat efficacy. however, as this is a cRPg, it allows us to solve quests via sneaky and or diplomatic means. our first encounter with the ogre in the caves were solved diplomatically... or sneaky, depending on how you look at it. should we have been robbed of all xp for quest completion because we chose to complete quest other than through violence?

 

c'mon folks, be serious.

 

HA! Good Fun!

What do you mean, sneaky? You can't solve the Ogre quest by stealth in any way. Thus, one who role-plays a sneaky character is shut out from XP/quest rewards in that quest unless he changes his style of game play.

 

"sneaky"

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneaky

 

we lied. we were deceptive. we were sneaky. 

 

we will keep bringing up 2 points:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494610

 

obsidian has clear stated that they is making a game w/o a right or best build. give a build with best xp award is counter-productive.

 

also,  "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." should be an easy task if you want achieved in relative limited time 'tween now and eventual release.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 27, 2014 by Gromnir