I learned that fights don't give you experience

[Namutree]

 

What is wrong with, "I need to kill it for XP" as a meaning exactly? It's just as meaningful as any motive.

Killing for XP is not a motive in an RPG. That's what's wrong with it. If you kill for XP, then you're not role playing.

XP is short for experience points; which is an abstraction for character growth. To kill things to get more experience at killing things IS role-playing. Why did my PC kill that Ogre? To get better at killing stuff. Should be pretty obvious.

 

 

 

The limitation you provide is arbitrary and needlessly restricting of people's enjoyment of the game.

Not really. You can still kill. I simply wouldn't tie progression of a character in an RPG around killing.

The inability for getting XP for killing something for the sole purpose of killing things or getting better at killing things is a 100% arbitrary limit on what counts as a meaningful purpose.

 

 

 

Having to kill an arbitrary number of creatures in order to raise my diplomacy skill makes no sense at all. In such light calling XP for quests dumb when you defend no less dumb system is hypocritical.

 

Who said you need to kill creatures? I never said XP for quests are dumb. You do realize the issue of kill and quest xp isn'ta situation where there can only be one, don't you? I've not hinted even a bit that there is something wrong with quest xp. I've suggested there is something wrong with the lack of kill-xp. 

 

BTW: There is not a diplomacy skill, and all of the skills you raise by leveling have combat oriented uses.

 

 

 

2. "XP is a fun abstraction" is just your opinion. 

 

Figure that out all by yourself or did you get help?

Edited March 20, 2015 by Namutree

[Tartantyco]

Namutree, we've been over this a thousand times already. How does killing the ogre improve my lockpicking skills? Your argument is a non-starter unless you support a direct and immediate XP system(Like The Elder Scrolls, for instance).

[Namutree]

Namutree, we've been over this a thousand times already. How does killing the ogre improve my lockpicking skills? Your argument is a non-starter unless you support a direct and immediate XP system(Like The Elder Scrolls, for instance).

You might be a bit confused. I didn't claim it was realistic; I know other pro-xp people have, and I know that's an absurd notion (There is no such thing as XP and "level ups"). I was arguing the merits of the "meaningfulness" of my actions.

 

He raises his skills to for some non-combat related reason, and does so by helping people and talking his way through situations. That's fine and dandy.

 

I raise my skills to kill things, and do so by killing things. That to me is just as valid.

[Tartantyco]

Except it isn't valid. This isn't an arena fighter, this is an RPG.

[Namutree]

Except it isn't valid. This isn't an arena fighter, this is an RPG.

My character is a mercenary and his/her combat skills is a serious matter to him/her. How can I achieve my (likely) combat related goals if I'm too weak? I should take every worth while chance to improve I get.

 

My character is a warrior who seeks to improve simply for the sake of improvement. Why would he/she pass up on a chance to grow as a warrior by fighting worthy foes?

 

These are both perfectly valid role-playing motivations for seeking to improve via combat.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Namutree

[Tartantyco]

And I want to play as a ballerina, dazzling the elite of Defiance Bay and gettomg swept off my feet by a sugar daddy. But guess what? That's not supported by the game. The characters you play as can only exist within the framework of the game, and that is to advance through the story(Side quests included) and explore the world. Anything you want to add beyond that is pure fluff.

 

Not. Valid.

[Namutree]

And I want to play as a ballerina, dazzling the elite of Defiance Bay and gettomg swept off my feet by a sugar daddy. But guess what? That's not supported by the game. The characters you play as can only exist within the framework of the game, and that is to advance through the story(Side quests included) and explore the world. Anything you want to add beyond that is pure fluff.

 

Not. Valid.

Combat is already in the game. So combat XP was a perfectly viable option that the developers had.

 

It's too late change it now, but my character motivations were just as "meaningful" and just as "valid role-playing" as any other motivation.

[Kal Adan]

Who said you need to kill creatures? I never said XP for quests are dumb. You do realize the issue of kill and quest xp isn'ta situation where there can only be one, don't you? I've not hinted even a bit that there is something wrong with quest xp. I've suggested there is something wrong with the lack of kill-xp.

Why stop at kill-XP only? I say the whole system is full of holes.

 

Figure that out all by yourself or did you get help?

Just pointed that out in case you thought it for a fact.

[Verenti]

 

And I want to play as a ballerina, dazzling the elite of Defiance Bay and gettomg swept off my feet by a sugar daddy. But guess what? That's not supported by the game. The characters you play as can only exist within the framework of the game, and that is to advance through the story(Side quests included) and explore the world. Anything you want to add beyond that is pure fluff.

 

Not. Valid.

Combat is already in the game. So combat XP was a perfectly viable option that the developers had.

 

It's too late change it now, but my character motivations were just as "meaningful" and just as "valid role-playing" as any other motivation.

 

 

Sneaking is in the game. Why don't we give experience for people who avoid fights all together? Or demonstrating the wisdom to know that ridding the woods of all predators would negatively impact the ecosystem in the long run?

 

Maybe killing endless fields of wolves sounds like it would be in your character's motivation, and it's your character so it probably is, but a mercenary probably wouldn't do that for sport. Why? Because he'd understand that combat is an inherently dangerous undertaking, and risking his health (and therefore his livelihood) by do work pro bono, isn't a very smart thing for him to do. A mercenary isn't someone who fights blindly. It's someone who fights for money. In considering contracts, they have to consider risk versus reward. Obviously low risk, high reward contracts are best, but they likely aren't going to take high risk, low reward contracts. Why? Because combat is inherently dangerous. Even sport combat like Fencing is inherently dangerous. And it is a bit like the life of a professional athlete in that you aren't a mercenary for a long time, so, realistical speaking, why would they risk their income against a lucky hit by a brigand, wolf or other monster, depleting a possible future revenue stream (killing a threat before they are contracted to do so)? That's a very unmercenary action to take.

 

The fact is, not-fighting with a threat can be as much of a "challenge" as fighting with it. In the case of the mercenary above, it would require some smarts and foresight to realise that wanton destruction doesn't benefit him. Is creating a sustainable business model less of an accomplishment than killing a bunch of people you had no real reason to kill?

 

Here's the problem with rewarding player motivation in a crpg:

1) the game has no way of communicating that. (It's possible to create one, but why bother?)

2) the game has no way of arbitrating a "valid" goal and a "non-valid" goal. (Maybe I insist that it is very important for my level 1 character to walk down the street. 9,999,999 xp important)

3) The current system elegantly deals with the  issue (You get a mission, and it doesn't matter how you resolve said mission, you get rewarded.) It allows a number of approaches to be weighted equally, and, if you care about combat balance, as many here really do, it allows for the game to remain balanced for longer. You can't grind to get ahead of the difficulty curve, so they don't need to stack the difficulty curve with a guess to as whether or not you had been grinding for xp.

[Namutree]

 

2) the game has no way of arbitrating a "valid" goal and a "non-valid" goal. (Maybe I insist that it is very important for my level 1 character to walk down the street. 9,999,999 xp important)

 

It doesn't have to. THAT WAS MY POINT.

 

It should reward overcoming challenges.

 

My logic was argued against on the basis that if the given challenge didn't have "meaningful" purpose; then it shouldn't give xp.

 

I then argued that any purpose is "meaningful" and "valid". Which is why using a "meaningful" metric for xp is utterly arbitrary as all motivations for action are equal.

 

 

 

3) The current system elegantly deals with the  issue (You get a mission, and it doesn't matter how you resolve said mission, you get rewarded.) It allows a number of approaches to be weighted equally, and, if you care about combat balance, as many here really do, it allows for the game to remain balanced for longer. You can't grind to get ahead of the difficulty curve, so they don't need to stack the difficulty curve with a guess to as whether or not you had been grinding for xp.

 

The issue isn't being elegantly dealt with at all. Say I kill the Ogre; if I didn't talk to some random farmer I'll never get any xp reward despite the fact I've solved the problem and engaged in a deadly battle.

 

Or even worse, I just leave the Ogre's body alone because why would I take the Ogre's head? Well, that means no xp for me. How could the PC be expected to grow without gaining the approval of the random farmer?

 

The system punishes you for being uninterested in doing tedious b*tch work for some random farmer that any decent mercenary would just as soon ignore. Unless your idea of a mercenary is some one who talks to everyone in a city to see if they have some small problem to solve. Sounds more like a freelance servant than a mercenary or warrior. 

 

The xp system in PoE is just dumb.

 

The game would play better with kill-xp. It would allow for a greater variety of role-playing to be viable. It would also make it easier for discerning player to ignore uninteresting quests since there are other ways to gain xp.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Namutree

[Suhiir]

It's really a matter of play style.

You like combat and feel a game should reward you (with XP) for doing what you enjoy.

Others feel that since it's an RPG the point of the game is decision making and mission accomplishment, thus the XP should come from that.

 

The problem is game designers can control character development fairly well with quest XP, because they know how much you're getting when and how much you should have at various points in the game.  Thus game balance is much, much easier.

 

With respawning MOBs and kill XP it's nearly impossible to balance a game.

[Namutree]

It's really a matter of play style.

You like combat and feel a game should reward you (with XP) for doing what you enjoy.

Others feel that since it's an RPG the point of the game is decision making and mission accomplishment, thus the XP should come from that.

 

The problem is game designers can control character development fairly well with quest XP, because they know how much you're getting when and how much you should have at various points in the game.  Thus game balance is much, much easier.

 

With respawning MOBs and kill XP it's nearly impossible to balance a game.

Balance is likely why they chose not to provide Kill Xp. Doesn't mean that the game *shouldn't* provide Kill XP on principle though; which is what others have suggested.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Anything is easy to balance with an ECL system. When experience rewards are issued in proportion to the challenge rating versus the character's level, very little balancing is required.

[Lephys]

If you ask me, a good XP system would be one that separates combat and non-combat activities. Maybe it groups them, though, so that hitting someone with a sword doesn't JUST make you better at hitting with a sword, direct-simulation style... maybe you just gain combat insight and such, and realize you probably should've blocked with a shield there, etc? *shrug*). Because, how do you represent poisoning a ration delivery, or dislodging a boulder from a cliff so that it crushes all your enemies? Really, you should just gain "cleverness" XP for that. So, maybe there are just groups of related skills, and you gain XP for doing things, which you can then spend on any of the skills in that group.

 

OR, maybe you still just gain general XP for quests/accomplishments, but something like fighting grants you points towards combat perks? And doing non-combat things that weren't necessarily quest-oriented could give you points towards non-combat perks. This way, you're improving yourself if you decide to, for example, go slaughter all the wolves in the land, but you're not doing so in a global/overarching way. "I'm just 7 times better at everything because I've killed SO many wolves! 8D!"

 

*shrug*. Just, with only general XP that levels you, improving you across the board, there's not much "YEAH BUT FIGHTING GIVES YOU EXPERIENCE!" argument to be had. I mean, that's true, but if the system isn't really representing that, it hardly matters. So, in terms of "All we're going to have is one type of XP, levels, and sweeping character improvements from those levels," I definitely think only rewarding "quests" is the way to go. Although, I think the typical layout for quests is not fit to use for everything, and I don't even think the term really covers all the things you should get XP for.

[Zansatsu]

 

 Say I kill the Ogre; if I didn't talk to some random farmer I'll never get any xp reward despite the fact I've solved the problem and engaged in a deadly battle.

 

Or even worse, I just leave the Ogre's body alone because why would I take the Ogre's head? Well, that means no xp for me. How could the PC be expected to grow without gaining the approval of the random farmer?

 

The system punishes you for being uninterested in doing tedious b*tch work for some random farmer that any decent mercenary would just as soon ignore. Unless your idea of a mercenary is some one who talks to everyone in a city to see if they have some small problem to solve. Sounds more like a freelance servant than a mercenary or warrior. 

 

The xp system in PoE is just dumb.

 

 

 

 

Great point.  You could walk around the whole game, effectively defeating a very challenging encounter, and never know what you were supposed to do with the damned Ogre head you put in your stash or whether it was just a waste of space. To bad I didn't talk to every NPC in town just incase.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Great point.  You could walk around the whole game, effectively defeating a very challenging encounter, and never know what you were supposed to do with the damned Ogre head you put in your stash or whether it was just a waste of space. To bad I didn't talk to every NPC in town just incase.

 

...or, you could walk around with a dead cat in your inventory--just in case it might come in handy.

[Luckmann]

 

Great point.  You could walk around the whole game, effectively defeating a very challenging encounter, and never know what you were supposed to do with the damned Ogre head you put in your stash or whether it was just a waste of space. To bad I didn't talk to every NPC in town just incase.

 

...or, you could walk around with a dead cat in your inventory--just in case it might come in handy.

 

 

This. This is Adventuring 101.

[Mysh]

I love that fights don't earn you XP. This would encourage pure RP, talking and negotiating. If you want XP per fights consider diablo. This is a cRPG dude.

 

In some RPGs we had to search for every possible fight, search inn's cellar if there are rats to exterminate, search in the swamp if there are mosquitos and bull frogs, search under every tomb if there is a skeleton left etc. Why should a true hero behave like this? The quest driven XP is much more meaningful to me.

[Valsuelm]

I love that fights don't earn you XP. This would encourage pure RP, talking and negotiating. If you want XP per fights consider diablo. This is a cRPG dude.

 

In some RPGs we had to search for every possible fight, search inn's cellar if there are rats to exterminate, search in the swamp if there are mosquitos and bull frogs, search under every tomb if there is a skeleton left etc. Why should a true hero behave like this? The quest driven XP is much more meaningful to me.

 

This is a cRPG that is supposed to be based on the IE games. All of which awarded XP for killing. XP for killing in an RPG is fundamental to most PnP RPGs, not just AD&D, which the IE games were based on, and very arguably the vast majority of all cRPGs ever made to a degree.

 

No one is forcing you to 'search for every skeleton', etc. Being a completionist or an XP farmer is one's prerogative. For those that are the latter, they're just going to go about it a different way in a game without combat XP.

 

A good GM (the game acts as a GM) awards quest XP, RP XP, combat XP, and so on. There's many things that can earn one XP in a well run campaign. Not having combat XP in a game that is supposed to be based on the IE games, and have a great amount of combat as those games did, is one of the a fundamental divergences that Obsidian has taken, to the dismay of many, if not most of the people that backed the game because Obsidian primarily invoked the IE games in their pitch.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Namutree]

I love that fights don't earn you XP. This would encourage pure RP, talking and negotiating.

 

Not awarding Xp for combat is BAD FOR ROLE-PLAYING.

 

 

If you want XP per fights consider diablo. 

 

Or nearly every other RPG. I could make that argument about nearly everything. What if PoE didn't let you talk to npcs? You want to talk to npcs? Might I suggest diablo.

 

 

 

In some RPGs we had to search for every possible fight, search inn's cellar if there are rats to exterminate, search in the swamp if there are mosquitos and bull frogs, search under every tomb if there is a skeleton left etc. Why should a true hero behave like this?

Like what? I've never played in an RPG where searching for every fight was needed or even efficient. Certainly this was not the case in the IE games (which all had combat xp), and that's what PoE is supposed to be based on.

 

 

The quest driven XP is much more meaningful to me.

So? This isn't a case of choosing between quest and combat xp.

[Darkpriest]

 

 

...they've already failed on both the "memorable companions of Baldur's Gate" (only 8 companions, hardly enough to fill a single party, let alone do anything remotely resembling being close to Baldur's Gate)...

What does number of companions have to do with their memorability? Actually, it's quite the opposite, less on quantity should make it more on quality.

Nothing. But if you want to evoke Baldur's Gate as an inspiration for companions, there should be loads more than 8. I wasn't commenting at all on memorability, but the plurality. Planescape: Torment also had very, very few CNPC:s (but they worked them differently, so it was alright) but they were all amazingly memorable, but they chose to sell the CNPC:s using Baldur's Gate as an example.

You remember the original number of the NPC companions in the pitch right? We got more through the additional funding and you still complain about that? I mean wtf? It is on par with PS:T in number and hopefully quality. Remember that we are in 2015 and the game had a very limited funding with a ton of things to be developed from the scratch unlike BG which had lore and combat mechanics only to be ported.

[Mysh]

 

I love that fights don't earn you XP. This would encourage pure RP, talking and negotiating.

 

Not awarding Xp for combat is BAD FOR ROLE-PLAYING.

 

If you want XP per fights consider diablo. 

 

Or nearly every other RPG. I could make that argument about nearly everything. What if PoE didn't let you talk to npcs? You want to talk to npcs? Might I suggest diablo.

 

Please no shouting and no caps in a civil discussion. Well, I say that awarding XP for combat is not good for RP.

 

PoE let's you talk to NPCs, so that's a completely pointless argument. What if trains had no wheels?

 

Thank you your suggestion, I will consider it when I want to play RPG without talking to NPCs.

 

 

In some RPGs we had to search for every possible fight, search inn's cellar if there are rats to exterminate, search in the swamp if there are mosquitos and bull frogs, search under every tomb if there is a skeleton left etc. Why should a true hero behave like this?

 

Like what? I've never played in an RPG where searching for every fight was needed or even efficient. Certainly this was not the case in the IE games (which all had combat xp), and that's what PoE is supposed to be based on.

 

OK there is a first time for everything. PoE has no XP per fights. You'd better get used to it, because this is how it is. It is a good thing as well. Give it a try at least, if you like IE.

 

IE is much more beyond the XP per fights, or per quest narrow minded view. So certainly, disagree with such a simplistic thinking.

 

 

The quest driven XP is much more meaningful to me.

 

So? This isn't a case of choosing between quest and combat xp. 

 

Oh really? Good to know. Thanks

Edited March 22, 2015 by Mysh

[Namutree]

 

OK there is a first time for everything. PoE has no XP per fights. You'd better get used to it, because this is how it is. It is a good thing as well. Give it a try at least, if you like IE.

 

I have long ago accepted that PoE will not have combat XP. So I am already used to it. It is unfortunate though given the RP and play style restrictions inherent to not providing combat XP. 

 

Disappointing that an IE inspired game would ditch the IE method of giving XP. It's still better than it used to be though.

 

 

 

awarding XP for combat is not good for RP.

 

I have already had this argument in this thread about how combat XP conforms to RP, and how not providing combat XP limits viable RP options. See those for why this statement is utterly wrong.

 

 

 

PoE let's you talk to NPCs, so that's a completely pointless argument. What if trains had no wheels?

 

You used a nonsense argument, and I gave a hypothetical scenario that shows how absurd your logic is. Your suggestion of "play Diablo" if you want combat xp could be used to justify axing any game mechanic that the IE games shared with Diablo. (which is a lot since both are RPGs.)

 

That would include dialog.

That would include enemies.

That would include colors.

 

The list goes on and on.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Namutree

[Kal Adan]

Like what? I've never played in an RPG where searching for every fight was needed or even efficient. Certainly this was not the case in the IE games (which all had combat xp), and that's what PoE is supposed to be based on.

That's your notion what spiritual successor is or what spiritual successor is supposed to contain. To me XP (overall XP, combat XP especially) wasn't even part of IE games experience. It was only a mechanical calculation that has always been done in the background (oh, I leveled up!), much like rolls in combat. That's why shifting XP heavily into the quests' side in Pillars of Eternity does not bother me. So that argument you make ain't universal or even true, depending on whom you ask.

 

Or nearly every other RPG. I could make that argument about nearly everything. What if PoE didn't let you talk to npcs? You want to talk to npcs? Might I suggest diablo.

 

You seem to think that any RPG element in a game automatically makes something an RPG.

[Namutree]

 

Like what? I've never played in an RPG where searching for every fight was needed or even efficient. Certainly this was not the case in the IE games (which all had combat xp), and that's what PoE is supposed to be based on.

That's your notion what spiritual successor is or what spiritual successor is supposed to contain.

I want to be very clear with this: 

 

Pillar of Eternity is not a "spiritual successor" to the IE games. It was never pitched as one, or advertised as one. Anyone calling Pillars of Eternity a "spiritual successor" to the IE games is simply wrong. PoE is a re-imagining of the IE games. Big difference. Not important in regard to combat XP, but is something that should be cleared up ASAP.

 

 

To me XP (overall XP, combat XP especially) wasn't even part of IE games experience. It was only a mechanical calculation that has always been done in the background (oh, I leveled up!), much like rolls in combat. That's why shifting XP heavily into the quests' side in Pillars of Eternity does not bother me. So that argument you make ain't universal or even true, depending on whom you ask.

 

What does this statement have to do with the line you quoted? Anyways, I don't really care that the lack of combat XP doesn't bother you. If quest Xp weren't around it wouldn't bother me, but you don't see me saying quest XP should be taken out just to screw people who like doing quests over. 

 

If they think a noble giving a sh*t about farmer mcf*cknut's pigs is the epitome of RP; no skin off my back if they get XP.