Please, No Lockpick or Trap-Disarm XP!

[Cantousent]

I honestly believe their original XP design was because of time constraints more than anything else. This game could end up with BG style kill, lock, etc type of EXP. 

 

...time was more of the issue as it is easier to just place XP in zones than individual monsters.

They might end up including XP for everything, which I believe is a mistake, but the current design isn't a matter of convenience or lack of time.  Now, Fox, before you get your back up, I'm not calling you wrong.  I'm saying this statement is factually untrue, at the very least regarding Sawyer.  Even before this project, Sawyer, in this very forum, proposed that kill XP was not good from a design perspective.  Now, I don't know for sure if he meant all manner of incidental XP or just kill XP, but he's made statements that demonstrate his preference for objective XP for many years now.  I don't tend to follow his comments or interviews elsewhere, but *here* he has been consistent.  I even posted a link to his comments from over two years ago that demonstrate that objective XP follows his design philosophy rather than just convenience.

[GreyFox]

 

I honestly believe their original XP design was because of time constraints more than anything else. This game could end up with BG style kill, lock, etc type of EXP. 

 

...time was more of the issue as it is easier to just place XP in zones than individual monsters.

They might end up including XP for everything, which I believe is a mistake, but the current design isn't a matter of convenience or lack of time.  Now, Fox, before you get your back up, I'm not calling you wrong.  I'm saying this statement is factually untrue, at the very least regarding Sawyer.  Even before this project, Sawyer, in this very forum, proposed that kill XP was not good from a design perspective.  Now, I don't know for sure if he meant all manner of incidental XP or just kill XP, but he's made statements that demonstrate his preference for objective XP for many years now.  I don't tend to follow his comments or interviews elsewhere, but *here* he has been consistent.  I even posted a link to his comments from over two years ago that demonstrate that objective XP follows his design philosophy rather than just convenience.

 

 

I am not saying I'm right either it's just what I think happened/is going on. I agree on JE but as he is finding out now on his own IP...what sounds good on paper(or bad) isn't always the case in actuality.

 

Like...I don't believe they would come out and say "Oh we went with objective based XP cuz yea...time"

Edited October 20, 2014 by GreyFox

[Fearabbit]

GreyFox, but what kind of argument is this? You're just throwing it out there. "Hey, maybe the true reason is budget and time constraints!"

It serves no purpose. There are people who prefer the one system and people who prefer the other system. Saying "but one of these systems is maybe only the prefered choice because it's easier to implement" does not add anything to the discussion (except maybe for the argument "AND it's easier to implement!" for the crowd who would like to do without XP rewards for every second action you take in the game).

 

Also I'm sick and tired of this argument that I shouldn't compare my own experience with that of others. Balancing is not about other people, it's about me and about the efficiency of my playstyle. And when I'm severly handicapped for actually roleplaying a character that makes sense, then I find that annoying. And that includes creating a character that is not min-maxed, as well as a character that does not stop to disarm every freaking trap because at this very moment, in the dungeon, surrounded by enemies, he decides that it's a good time for some practice.

That's how I want to play a roleplaying game, and I have a problem if the game is constantly rewarding me for NOT playing this way, instead of rewarding me for playing exactly this way.

 

(And I understand that there have to be limits here and there to this ideal of an RPG, but we certainly don't need to add even more of them, especially if they - disarming and lockpicking XP - are pointless, as we've established in the last few posts!)

Edited October 21, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Lephys]

In all fairness you realize how easy it is to simply change the reward to be EXP for entering the room by whatever means, or getting the loot from the chest regardless of how you opened it, or even disabling the trap no matter how the disabling was done.

Exactly. That's the very definition of objective-based XP, as opposed to unlock-disarm-or-kill-XP. Once you change the reward like that, you're no longer getting XP for the fact that you unlocked something. You're getting XP for what you accomplished by doing the unlocking. If that thing is no longer available to be accomplished (like "gain access to the inner chamber"), and/or can be done by some other means, then the single objective simultaneously covers all possible means AND prevents redundant rewards. All in one convenient package.

[wanderon]

GreyFox, but what kind of argument is this? You're just throwing it out there. "Hey, maybe the true reason is budget and time constraints!"

It serves no purpose. There are people who prefer the one system and people who prefer the other system. Saying "but one of these systems is maybe only the prefered choice because it's easier to implement" does not add anything to the discussion (except maybe for the argument "AND it's easier to implement!" for the crowd who would like to do without XP rewards for every second action you take in the game).

 

Also I'm sick and tired of this argument that I shouldn't compare my own experience with that of others. Balancing is not about other people, it's about me and about the efficiency of my playstyle. And when I'm severly handicapped for actually roleplaying a character that makes sense, then I find that annoying. And that includes creating a character that is not min-maxed, as well as a character that does not stop to disarm every freaking trap because at this very moment, in the dungeon, surrounded by enemies, he decides that it's a good time for some practice.

That's how I want to play a roleplaying game, and I have a problem if the game is constantly rewarding me for NOT playing this way, instead of rewarding me for playing exactly this way.

 

(And I understand that there have to be limits here and there to this ideal of an RPG, but we certainly don't need to add even more of them, especially if they - disarming and lockpicking XP - are pointless, as we've established in the last few posts!)

 

So what you're saying is that ROLE playing is your main focus - playing the character as you think he would respond to any given situation but you can't help yourself from ROLL playing - afraid the sky will fall or the game will fail if you don't hoard every single bit of XP offered even if it means not being true to your characters role?

 

Is this perhaps a bit of having your cake and eat it too? 

[Karkarov]

Good change to the poll.  I will add though that if bestiary exp is in then lock pick/trap exp via Mechanics is NOT the only skill with EXP tied to it as Lore skill helps you fill out the bestiary.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Karkarov

[Fearabbit]

Is this perhaps a bit of having your cake and eat it too? 

 

So is demanding XP for lockpicking and disarming (and combat XP of course) because your preferred playstyle is to kill everything, pick every lock and disarm all the traps. And then telling other people that they shouldn't care that they get less XP if they don't want to do that. It always works both ways.

 

The difference is that there is a system that works for all sides in a balanced way - an objective based XP system. It's closer to "having your cake and eating it too" for everyone, and I've yet to hear a good argument against it.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Gfted1]

Havent the devs stated that players will reach max level by doing nothing more than following the critical path? Why are people pretending that they MUST; disarm all traps , pick all locks and kill every creature or they will be "disadvantaged"?

[PrimeHydra]

Havent the devs stated that players will reach max level by doing nothing more than following the critical path? Why are people pretending that they MUST; disarm all traps , pick all locks and kill every creature or they will be "disadvantaged"?

Ah, that's news to me. It certainly helps, but...one would level up faster picking locks and disarming traps, so they'd be at an advantage facing higher-level challenges. Even if they end up capping out toward the very end regardless.

[Sensuki]

Havent the devs stated that players will reach max level by doing nothing more than following the critical path?

 

No, if you only follow the critical path I think they said you'd reach level 7-9 or thereabouts. You have to do side content to reach the max level (12).

[wanderon]

 

Is this perhaps a bit of having your cake and eat it too? 

 

So is demanding XP for lockpicking and disarming (and combat XP of course) because your preferred playstyle is to kill everything, pick every lock and disarm all the traps. And then telling other people that they shouldn't care that they get less XP if they don't want to do that. It always works both ways.

 

The difference is that there is a system that works for all sides in a balanced way - an objective based XP system. It's closer to "having your cake and eating it too" for everyone, and I've yet to hear a good argument against it.

 

 

Can't speak for anyone else but I for one am not DEMANDING anything other than a good game when it's released.

[Karkarov]

 

Havent the devs stated that players will reach max level by doing nothing more than following the critical path?

 

No, if you only follow the critical path I think they said you'd reach level 7-9 or thereabouts. You have to do side content to reach the max level (12).

That's true, but they have also said you don't have to do EVERYTHING in the game to hit max level.  Anyone who plays to 80-85% completion will likely hit max level.

[Cantousent]

Well, that just sucks!  I won't have any reason to do any quests after I've hit the level max!  I mean, why kill anything, unlock anything, or talk to any people if I don't get any XP for it?  :Cant's tongue in cheek grin:

[Fearabbit]

@Gfted1 - It's either a negligible effect or it isn't. That's what it boils down to, and we've had all the arguments for either possibility in the last few posts.

 

Can't speak for anyone else but I for one am not DEMANDING anything other than a good game when it's released.

 

That's a great attitude. Of course the question is what "good" means, and that's where the trenches are.

But actually, yeah - there hasn't been a whole lot of "demanding" in this thread, which is a good thing. But there has been a lot of it in general during development, and I'm a bit sick of it. I guess I do fall into that trap myself sometimes, but mostly I'm trying to say "this is my opinion, here are my arguments, but if the devs disagree so be it".

Edited October 22, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Cantousent]

I have to admit, I'm one of those crazy folks who likes to have a relatively low level adventure.  I want it to build to epic proportions.  If it starts out there or gets there too fast, it takes away some of the fun.  I mean, second or third pieces in the series are different, but every now and then it's good that a dev starts low level and keeps it there for a bit.

[Lephys]

So what you're saying is that ROLE playing is your main focus - playing the character as you think he would respond to any given situation but you can't help yourself from ROLL playing - afraid the sky will fall or the game will fail if you don't hoard every single bit of XP offered even if it means not being true to your characters role?

 

Is this perhaps a bit of having your cake and eat it too? 

The whole idea behind the game is that you shouldn't ever have to roleplay a character who doesn't get XP. That's the whole reason XP and level-ups abstractly represent improvement in any potential area of your character. You can gain XP purely through talking, until you level up, then improve your longsword proficiency.

 

So, this point makes no sense in this context. What you're getting at would make perfect sense, if the person who didn't go out of their way to kill everything simply missed out on combat prowess advancement, but they don't. They miss out on advancement, period.

 

That's the thing. XP is a universal currency. So, the person who doesn't sit down in the middle of a dungeon and weave 73 baskets shouldn't get "paid less" in this currency just because. The person who doesn't seek to make 20 animal species extinct in the forest doesn't need to become rich for that, while the person who quite-feasibly doesn't do that is poor.

 

Who you decide to roleplay (besides roleplaying against the very narrative itself) shouldn't conflict with the gameplay mechanics. So, if you want to roleplay an OCD trap-disarmer, then go ahead. The benefit of that shouldn't be universal advancement. It should just be the joy of getting to play your character how you'd like to. Disarming 100 traps in a cave gains you nothing when improvement isn't simulated, so it sure as hell shouldn't improve you, while being an actual sane person still gains you nothing.

[wanderon]

 

So what you're saying is that ROLE playing is your main focus - playing the character as you think he would respond to any given situation but you can't help yourself from ROLL playing - afraid the sky will fall or the game will fail if you don't hoard every single bit of XP offered even if it means not being true to your characters role?

 

Is this perhaps a bit of having your cake and eat it too? 

The whole idea behind the game is that you shouldn't ever have to roleplay a character who doesn't get XP. That's the whole reason XP and level-ups abstractly represent improvement in any potential area of your character. You can gain XP purely through talking, until you level up, then improve your longsword proficiency.

 

So, this point makes no sense in this context. What you're getting at would make perfect sense, if the person who didn't go out of their way to kill everything simply missed out on combat prowess advancement, but they don't. They miss out on advancement, period.

 

That's the thing. XP is a universal currency. So, the person who doesn't sit down in the middle of a dungeon and weave 73 baskets shouldn't get "paid less" in this currency just because. The person who doesn't seek to make 20 animal species extinct in the forest doesn't need to become rich for that, while the person who quite-feasibly doesn't do that is poor.

 

Who you decide to roleplay (besides roleplaying against the very narrative itself) shouldn't conflict with the gameplay mechanics. So, if you want to roleplay an OCD trap-disarmer, then go ahead. The benefit of that shouldn't be universal advancement. It should just be the joy of getting to play your character how you'd like to. Disarming 100 traps in a cave gains you nothing when improvement isn't simulated, so it sure as hell shouldn't improve you, while being an actual sane person still gains you nothing.

 

 

I disagree when it comes to roleplaying the XP is just some back of the scenes mechanic that the game uses to decide when and how much you level up and/or get whatever stuff they plan to give out in return for reaching XP goals -

 

(To me) if you are concerned about how much XP you need to get blah blah blah that's pretty much the definition of ROLL Playing (crunch the numbers figure out the best stuff and how you can get it ASAP )-

 

f(To me) when you ROLE play you take what you get and decide how your character will handle it based on whatever back story/character concept you have decided on and the game is about seeing where it will take you not being concerned about some number crunching mechanic in the back ground.

 

Not to mention (once more) that the whole concept that the piddly rewards they are likely to give out for lock picking/trap disarming has any remote possibilty of upsetting game balance for those who choose not to do so is ridiculous - it's nothing more than more I want what I want when I want it....

[Lephys]

I disagree when it comes to roleplaying the XP is just some back of the scenes mechanic that the game uses to decide when and how much you level up and/or get whatever stuff they plan to give out in return for reaching XP goals -

Negatory, Ghost Rider. The XP is a mechanic that directly represents the improvement/progression of your characters, which occurs in-character (unless you roleplay people who adventure for years and never ever acquire new knowledge or skills or hone anything, ever?)

 

 

(To me) if you are concerned about how much XP you need to get blah blah blah that's pretty much the definition of ROLL Playing (crunch the numbers figure out the best stuff and how you can get it ASAP )-

I understand what it is you're getting at, but it's not a binary thing. It's not as if, at character creation, you either just don't care about any of the numbers and their mechanical impact upon your gameplay with that character, OR you just want to min-max. There's an in-between range. You can care about XP and the like without caring ONLY about that, and you can roleplay aplenty.

 

Furthermore, if roleplaying were not giving a crap at all about any of the "behind-the-scenes mechanics," and roll-playing is so preposterous, then why even have XP rewards in the game for anything, as it would only support roll-playing?

 

That's what I'm getting at. Why have mechanics in a roleplaying game that you have to fight against or ignore in order to roleplay?

 

 

Not to mention (once more) that the whole concept that the piddly rewards they are likely to give out for lock picking/trap disarming has any remote possibilty of upsetting game balance for those who choose not to do so is ridiculous - it's nothing more than more I want what I want when I want it....

Even furthermore... if they're so piddly, then why does it matter if they're there or not? That's like saying "Oh, hey, I hear they're going to have 1/1000ths of a copper penny lying around all over the place! Oh, don't worry, we shouldn't remove them from the game, because they'll have absolutely no significance, whatsoever! 8D!" It's not about "upsetting the balance of the game for someone else." It's just a simple question: Why the hell is something in the game, if not for an actual reason? If "Well, because it's something we could give you XP for" is reason enough, then why isn't everything worthy of some piddly XP reward? I seriously want an answer to that question. It's not rhetorical.

 

"Talk to an NPC? XP! Find another tree in the woods? XP! Steal that fuzzy robe from your room at the inn? XP! Oh, but don't worry... it's all horrendously insignificant amounts of XP. If you do all these things in the entire game, you'll only have 200 more XP at the end, u_u..."

[wanderon]

 

 

That's what I'm getting at. Why have mechanics in a roleplaying game that you have to fight against or ignore in order to roleplay?

 

 

Give me a freaking break - it's locks and traps - they are there for you to open/disarm - they are not there for show or mood or any other reason - if the devs want to give me some experience for spending some skill points so that I can open or disarm them then I am all for it - if you're not thats fine but stop with this ridiculous off the wall reasoning that getting a few points of experience for doing so means you can't freaking roleplay. 

[Cantousent]

Well, I would rather see some objective XP than systemic, but I don't have the sta.Ina to keep up the fight

lol

[Fearabbit]

 

 

That's what I'm getting at. Why have mechanics in a roleplaying game that you have to fight against or ignore in order to roleplay?

 

 

Give me a freaking break - it's locks and traps - they are there for you to open/disarm - they are not there for show or mood or any other reason - if the devs want to give me some experience for spending some skill points so that I can open or disarm them then I am all for it - if you're not thats fine but stop with this ridiculous off the wall reasoning that getting a few points of experience for doing so means you can't freaking roleplay. 

 

 

You're completely ignoring any points made except the one that you find ridiculous, though. (And the questions raised.)

Also you're making it sound so extreme. Personally I think it's annoying that you get rewarded for doing unnecessary stuff. I think it's unbalanced to get two rewards for picking a lock (an XP reward and a loot reward). And I think it's ironic that an RPG rewards me for compulsively disarming all traps for no reason.

 

I'm not desperately crying "waaah I can't roleplaaaay". But there is always a ludo-narrative dissonance in games, and I don't see why we would want to increase that, instead of trying to minimize it. And giving players rewards for unnecessary actions that this character wouldn't do in a normal story is exactly that - purposely increasing the ludo-narrative dissonance.

[Karkarov]

I'm not desperately crying "waaah I can't roleplaaaay". But there is always a ludo-narrative dissonance in games, and I don't see why we would want to increase that, instead of trying to minimize it. And giving players rewards for unnecessary actions that this character wouldn't do in a normal story is exactly that - purposely increasing the ludo-narrative dissonance.

I agree with what you say in most of this thread Rabbit.  I do have to chime in here though.

 

There is little to no argument behind "forcing players to compulsively unlock chests or doors".  Because Wanderon's point, which is valid because it is true, is that almost all players are going to try to unlock that chest, or door, or disarm that trap regardless of whether or not EXP is involved.  I certainly don't care that for example in the recent Risen 3 there was no exp for picking locks.  However when I rolled into a town with a barracks and found 6 locked chests in there you better believe I waited for nightfall and everyone to be asleep then snuck in there and picked every lock in the place.  I will be the same for the most part in Eternity regardless, barring RP reasons cause in Eternity I will likely not be playing the role of a pirate who just happens to like saving the world.

 

The point is this, where loot is involved most players will shelve "good guy RP" and go out of their way to get it.  Even if that means picking the lock on the chest in Old Widow Jones house and stealing her last 50 gold.  EXP being involved is a non issue because most players will do it anyway.

 

Secondly... please don't use that insane ludo narrative dissonance argument.  It is a video game, not pride and prejudice or 12 years a slave.  There will always be things that don't make sense, because it is a game.  Decisions on gameplay and character progression need to be made for reasons of balance, fun factor, and function.  Not because they make narrative sense.  Meanwhile I hate to burst peoples bubble but 90% of what you do in a video game makes no narrative sense to begin with.  

[IndiraLightfoot]

Yup! Sometimes, it's easy to forget that CRPGs are games and that they should be viewed, analysed and treated as such. The degree of roleplaying is rather a special breed of "roleplaying", where I fonze around with whack-a-mole/mini-one-armed-bandits in digital settings with nice graphics and sound FX.   

[Cantousent]

I get you, Kar, but that cuts both ways. Don't pretend it breaks RP because you get XP, but don't pretend your only incentive is the XP and it harms you not to get it.

[wanderon]

I'm only going to say this once more - locks and traps are put in the game either to protect loot or quest items - making it more of a challenge to obtain them - the number of times there was a roleplaying reason to not open the lock and/or disarm the trap in any of the IE games is for the most part minimal with the possible exception of the LG character not wanting to loot from innocents. If you are playing such a character then certainly a handful of experience should not make you change your roleplay stance and if it does by the gods that's on YOU - you do NOT get to blame the developers for putting experience on locks & traps spoiling your gameplay.

 

I make this sound so extreme because that's exactly how it looks to me - just another case of overstating a point in a an effort to "win" an internet

argument - now if we at least got some experience for reading this rhetoric maybe it would not bother me so much...