No XP from kills in an RPG (Pillars of Eternity)

[BlackGoat]

Should be XP for kills and XP for treasure

 

[Yosharian]

The minute you realise you're not getting XP from kills, (snip...)

not having XP for kills in a game that is mostly about combat

I said precisely the opposite of that

Here, let me provide you the quote:

"If your core gameplay loop is 'kill shit and loot its corpse' then XP for kills is fine."

Ergo if your game is 'mostly about combat' then there's nothing wrong with XP for kills.

 

[Yosharian]

The minute you realise you're not getting XP from kills, (snip...)

If you really want to control PC power levels through your game, why not just drop the pretense and level them up automatically when a new chapter (or whatever you have in your game) starts? But if you want XPs in your game, then please use them right, make earning XP something that is part of the challenge of the game, not just a formality.

> why not just drop the pretense and level them up automatically when a new chapter (or whatever you have in your game) starts

That's exactly how I run my PnP games, through milestone levelling. XP calculations are still useful for determining what is an appropriate encounter for a given party at a given level. But ultimately, I use my own judgement as to what is appropriate.

> make earning XP something that is part of the challenge of the game

That's fine, I don't see how this is mutually exclusive with XP for kills. You can have XP for quest rewards, for example, and still have XP be part of the challenge of the game.

 

[Yosharian]

Having a single form of "experience" that dictates your entire character's growth is the root of this problem.
On one end you have the concept of being able to lie better, be more intelligent, etc., by repeatedly killing weak goblins.
On the other you don't get better at fighting by actually, well, fighting.

Deus Ex (the original) had two forms of character progression, one was driven by XP, which was earned through in-game activities such as finding a secret passageway (but NOT kills). You could spend this XP on improving your skills.

The other way of progressing was to discover augments in the game world, which you could equip to become stronger.

Of course, the sequels dumbed the entire system down to one form of experience, as you said.

 

[Yosharian]

The minute you realise you're not getting XP from kills, (snip...)

Second because it is probably a sign you want to control how your game is played, rather than giving the players tools for them to interact with your world.

Not giving the players XP for kills is exactly the opposite of me wanting to control how my game is played, rather than giving the players tools for them to interact with the world. I mean that's blindingly obvious if you just stop and think about it for a second.

I'll spell it out for you: if I award the players XP for kills, I am promoting a certain kind of resolution (killing) as a solution, over other solutions.

Other solutions could be to persuade the enemy or monster (some characters can persuade monsters), or sneak past the enemy/monster. Those methods aren't rewarded with XP if you use a 'kill monster to get XP' system.

 

[hexer]

Maybe kills in PoE didn't yield XP because Josh "The Balance King" Sawyer found them too hard to balance
But I assume they just dumped the average net gain from combat XP into quest XP at the end of the day to keep level progression smooth.
For example, a quest that would normally give you 1000 XP in PoE gave you 3000 XP because you had to trash some mobs before solving it

 

[Yosharian]

Maybe kills in PoE didn't yield XP because Josh "The Balance King" Sawyer found them too hard to balance
But I assume they just dumped the average net gain from combat XP into quest XP at the end of the day to keep level progression smooth.
For example, a quest that would normally give you 1000 XP in PoE gave you 3000 XP because you had to trash some mobs before solving it

How would you know what a quest would 'normally' give you, in Pillars? Unless you're on the development team, you couldn't know that.

 

[acer palmatum]

If I kill something I eat its heart to take over skills and memories of my fallen enemy - of course this should never stop.

 

[orcinator]

XP makes a game worse more often than not since it destroys the game's difficulty if you stray even an inch away from the order the devs wanted you to experience the content in.
It's pretty addictive though, which is why every modern game has XP mechanics.

But removing it does nothing if you still follow the RPG mindset where you HAVE to paint every corner of your map with the Wolf and Bandit brushes like PoE's devs did.

 

[Shin]

skill points > general xp points

 

[hexer]

How would you know what a quest would 'normally' give you, in Pillars? Unless you're on the development team, you couldn't know that.

Exactly, that's what I wrote! The team determined the natural level progression per area and distributed quest XP according to the most probable path most players would undertake.
PoE doesn't have the free roaming worldmap as, for example, Fallout 1/2 did so it's easier to balance quest XP becasue you kinda guess accurately most of the time where will players go and at what party level.
Man, Josh Sawyer really had fun developing balancing this game!

 

[Martyr]

no XP for killing? that's like working and not getting payed. doesn't matter if you love your work or not, sooner or later you will get annoyed. there's no incentive to push on.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It's garbage coming from megalomaniacs who constantly try to reinvent the wheel since they're talentless hacks incapable of doing a good game.

 

[mondblut]

Watching little numbers go up is the only fun part about an RPG anyway. If you are being robbed even of that, there is no point playing.

 

[Grauken]

Why not both?

 

[Strange Fellow]

What RPG doesn't have XP awards for quests, anyway?

 

[luinthoron]

Icewind Dale is more defensible in this respect, because it was honest. There was no pretense about it being a narrative-driven game like with PoE.

Icewind Dale one was also more sensible about number of encounters than IWD 2. In 2 they could probably reduce the number of trash encounters by 30% and the game would be better for it plus sawyer wouldn't have had to come up with that xp scaling system to make sure you were at the level he wanted you to be at at x point in the game.

Kek that is still probably the most autistic game design decision I have ever seen. "Hey guys we added so many trivial encounters and trash mobs to the game that people are too high of level. Hmmm, I know lets just reduce the trash (cue guy being thrown out office window). I know, we will just make it so they stop getting experience once they have a level or 2 over the monsters. Genius!"

Whatever else in IWD2 one may blame on Sawyer, this part is not one of them. XP scaling and no XP for enemies some levels (IIRC, 4, but it's been a while since I had the books in my hands) below you is part of the standard XP table for D&D 3rd Edition, which IWD2 used as its ruleset.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Why not both?

Apparently they're mutually exclusive. Even though most RPGs did both, somehow that was either wrong or let's revise history and pretend it didn't happen, because... umm... lazyness to balance both or obsession to have that perfect balance where the players can only play as you envisioned with no possibility of stepping outside the lines.

 

[vota DC]

It worked in bloodlines. You kill non dangeous enemies in combat zones only if you need to refill your blood.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

Underrail did it and nobody complained.

In fact the oddity system is fantastic. Not for every game obviously but PERFECT for a game like UR.

 

[mondblut]

Why not both?

Because storyfags cannot into combat and are butthurt over being left out?

 

[JarlFrank]

What RPG doesn't have XP awards for quests, anyway?

Elder Scrolls.

 

[Strange Fellow]

But when games like BG do it, it is strange. These are not true combat games anyway

Says who? What else do you play BG for, the riveting dialogue?

 

[Safav Hamon]

Technically you get a one time XP bonus for killing several enemies of the same type.

 

[JarlFrank]

How does removing combat XP actually help make the game less combat-focused and put more weight on non-combat solutions? It's just a band-aid to solve the problem of shit level and encounter design.

"We're gonna reward everyone equally by taking away the reward from the most commonly taken approach so everyone only gets the quest XP, and no additional XP from the way they solved it. This way we'll encourage people to attempt non-combat solutions!"
Uh, yeah. And yet the overall design still encourages the combat approach. LOL WUT

That's how PoE is designed. No combat XP because balance and encouraging non-combat solutions, but then you explore a dungeon and... there isn't really any other approach to it than combat. Yeah. Okay. Your game removes combat XP in order to encourage non-combat playstyles but then the dungeon design actually incentivises the combat approach because there isn't really a good stealth system to sneak past enemies, and there are plenty of trash mobs to fight. Okay. Totally consistent design there, yeah.

If you want to solve the problem of players hunting down a dozen trash mobs to get all the XP those trash mobs give, how about you solve it not by taking away the XP... but by taking away the trash mobs? Just some food for thought. Your players won't end up over-leveled if you don't supply them with a hundred trash mobs to grind through, and as a little bonus the game will feel less tedious to play through, too, because combat is less frequent but if it happens it's more exciting. And you get sweet XP for it. Everyone wins.

So, how would you go about balancing the rewards for combat and non-combat approaches? If the combat guy gets XP for fighting, the non-combat guys will be left out! So we have to remove combat XP to reward everyone equally!!!

No. Just give XP for non-combat solutions and everyone is happy. I'm playing through Atom RPG right now and you get XP for shitloads of stuff. Successfully pass a skillcheck? Get XP. Pick a lock? Get XP. Find out something interesting by talking to an NPC and picking the right options to get him to spill the beans? Get XP. Repair a device? Get XP. Etc.

If there's a dialogue/diplomacy solution for getting a group of bandits to leave the area, give the dialogue check a similar amount of XP as killing them all.
If there's a way to bypass a dungeon encounter by solving a puzzle that opens a secret area, give XP for solving the puzzle.
If there's a quest for an assassin to eliminate a target, give bonus XP for not being detected. Stealth games like Dishonored have "ghost" and "non-lethal" statistics at the end of the level that check whether you were ever detected and whether you killed any innocents. Just make the game check whether the player's character was ever detected during his mission and whether he killed anyone other than his target. Award a hefty XP bonus for not being detected and not killing anyone other than his target. Boom, you just massively rewarded a stealth character for playing stealthy. And it actually feels rewarding to pass the challenge of ghosting the quest, rather than the lame "we make stealth as rewarding as combat by taking away combat XP so fighters get the same reward as sneakers - none, lol"

But coming up with ways to reward non-combat approaches, and implementing these rewards, requires more effort and creativity than just stripping away combat XP to level the playing field. If no approach is rewarding, then all approaches are equally rewarding, aren't they? BALANCE!!!!1