You're assuming the player won't get XP for using, say, Lore in convos or certain situations. If we do, then doesn't that argument apply to Lore as well? (i.e. that Lore is more desirable).
There aren't multiple ways to pick locks or disarm traps, though. (You can find the key, but there goes your XP). Most skill checks in scripted conversations that are part of quest objectives, are not the not the only way to achieve the objective. You can usually choose "[Attack] That's enough out of you!" and kill them.
Problem with limiting the number of points per level is twofold (and maybe more):1) this means no high level skill checks unless the intent is to make the player come back again later when at a higher level or once again the checks are so high (compared to the player's possible skill level at that point) that you have to max the skill (to the point the restrictions allow) anyway to be able to pass. Or the skill checks are so trivially easy that they're inconsequential.2) you'll have a whole contingent of players complaining they can't make a specialist character and are forced to build their character a different way than they want to because they're either forced to dump points into a skill they don't want or they end up not spending them and are getting a pool of 'useless' skill points.
This is true, which is why I conceded that such a system wouldn't work well with six characters and only five skills. If there were many more skills, there'd be (some) incentive to branch out, because you could get at least some of the skill checks for some of the skills. But none of this really negates the need for unbiased skill selection in the first place. That can be achieved without regard to specializing or diversifying.
I think the better - although not ideal - solution is similar to Wasteland 2 in that you can attempt a skill check with lower skill values, but there's an increasingly large chance of failure (and critical failure) if your skill level is below the target threshold. But this does, of course, 'promote' save-scumming. But I think at some point the devs have to stop worrying about how the players are going to bypass certain challenges and stop worrying about 'degenerative' game play if it's something the player has to consciously choose to participate in.I mean, the way I see it: XP for traps and locks? I don't care. Does that mean that some players will max out Mechanics and then disarm every trap and search out every lock just to get every last possible XP? Yes, it does. Who cares? It's a single player game and they're choosing to play it how they want. Same with save-scumming. Same with XP for kills. It's the player's choice to do that.Meh, like I said I'm getting so sick of the angst surrounding XP awards in this game that I'm starting to not really give a crap how they decide to do it.
I guess I just don't see why we need XP for traps and locks. Most of the arguments for it state "I like it and I don't care if it's exploitable or creates a skill bias". OK. But why isn't disarming the trap or picking the lock reward enough? You get safe passage and/or loot. Do you really need to gain experience, too?
It echoes the combat XP argument in a lot of ways ("that's their choice so leave their XP alone"). The difference is, traps and locks are not nearly as common as enemies. Incentivizing them even more than they already are makes no sense, because a) you're not constantly encountering them, b) getting past them is a significant reward in itself and c) there is only one way to gain their XP--Mechanics.
As for throwing up your hands about the issue, there is still plenty of time until release. Expect people to debate it for a while. I joined the conversation well after the Kickstarter campaign, so maybe I'm less burnt out on it.
Edited by PrimeHydra, 17 October 2014 - 09:43 AM.